The 60 Minutes Segment on the Lawyers Who Kept Silent While an Innocent Man Sat in Prison
Video here of the 60 Minutes segment on those lawyers who stayed silent while an innocent man spent 26 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. (Previous post here.)
Fascinating.
Some things you learn watching the video:
- The lawyers believe that if they had spoken out in violation of ethical rules, their client’s confession would not have been admissible. Maybe they’re right — and if they are, then they did the right thing.
- The innocent man’s lawyer agrees that the guilty man’s lawyers had no choice but to remain silent. (The innocent man, of course, disagrees.)
- Jurors hung 10-2 on the question of death for the innocent man. He feels those 2 jurors saved his life. But maybe they cost him time in prison — because the lawyers for the guilty man say they would have been ethically entitled to prevent a wrongful execution, and would have acted if the innocent man had been sentenced to death, and was about to be executed. But, they say, they could not prevent the innocent man’s wrongful imprisonment.
I’ve always said that if you’re truly innocent of a murder, you might actually be better off with a death sentence rather than a sentence of life — because if you’re facing death, activists will care about you a lot more. And it’s the activists who get innocent people out of prison, through their tireless work combing over the facts of old cases.
- There is no indication that the lawyers leaned very hard on their client to disclose the information himself while he was alive. He was facing other capital charges; perhaps he could have been persuaded that his own position was hopeless. Who knows?
If you’re at all interested in this story, you must watch the video.
UPDATE: Typo fixed.
no matter how you slice & dice it,any ethical system that permits and indeed condones innocent people being found guilty of crimes is itself corrupt and morally bankrupt.
james conrad (7cd809) — 3/11/2008 @ 1:21 amJames: that’s as may be, but the DA got to cut another notch in his desk. That’s what counts; justice hasn’t a damned thing to do with it. Our system is nothing more than a tango contest. You just hope like hell that the numbers held up by the jurors for your attorney’s performance are higher for you than they are for the prosecutor’s.
the friendly grizzly (cecaee) — 3/11/2008 @ 2:01 amOn the third bullet point, shouldn’t the phrase:
Actual (9f223b) — 3/11/2008 @ 3:12 am“— because the lawyers for the innocent man say they would have been ethically entitled to prevent a wrongful execution,”
read instead as:
“— because the lawyers for the guilty man say they would have been ethically entitled to prevent a wrongful execution,”
I watched the 60 minutes interview. Terribly complicated issue. The issue is not so much about this specific case as the question “Is there something that could be done to prevent a future occurence?”
voiceofreason2 (3b86e6) — 3/11/2008 @ 3:28 amI’m not a lawyer and any solution I may have is more based on emotion than due process and the law. Is there a role for the Supreme Court in something like this?
“— because the lawyers for the guilty man say they would have been ethically entitled to prevent a wrongful execution,”
I think that the Innocence project is going to eventually prove that an innocent person was executed. There is one case in Texas where the prosecutor refuses to turn over hairs that could determine whether a man was wrongfully executed. The evidence will be destroyed at some point and they don’t want to allow the testing.
voiceofreason2 (3b86e6) — 3/11/2008 @ 3:32 amIf, as I believe it will, that first wrongful execution is proven I think it will generate quite a firestorm in the public arena.
Actual: yes. It’s fixed now, thanks.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 3/11/2008 @ 5:47 amEthics rules allow an attorney to disclose a client communication in order to prevent commission of a crime in the future. My guess is that allowing a disclosure to prevent an innocent defendant from being executed (rather than imprisoned) relies on a similar policy — the finality of the execution would prevent the innocent from seeking a new trial through other, non-privileged evidence.
Perhaps a similar exception could be fashioned for the Alton Logan facts, but as the video points out, without the guilty client’s waiver, how would it ever be admitted into evidence?
At least there is some public policy rationale for balancing the need for attorney/client privilege and the need for confidential communication against the risk of injustice. I want to see 60 Minutes apply the same scrutiny to journalism. Will we ever see an expose of CNN’s complicit silence about the atrocities in Saddam’s Iraq?
The News We Kept To Ourselves by Eason Jordan:
capitano (03e5ec) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:45 amWhat is the difference between the two scenarios?
How are their ethics suddenly mute when the death penalty is in play, but fully active when it is merely Life? The lawyers, I think, were hoping for someone else to save them from the dilemma and were content to wait 26 years. Their conscience allowed the innocent man to suffer while alive, but couldn’t bear to watch him die, thus ending his suffering.
There are some who feel Life is ‘cruel and unusual’
Semanticleo (f828ed) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:46 amconsidering the Hobbesian-times-Ten environment of our prison system.
There is no indication that the lawyers leaned very hard on their client to disclose the information himself while he was alive. He was facing other capital charges; perhaps he could have been persuaded that his own position was hopeless. Who knows?
Lawyers aren’t supposed to encourage clients to plead guilty as a moral obligation. Only as a tactical decision.
How can someone believe they are getting fair representation if their own attorneys want them to end up behind bars?
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:59 amBased on their own ethics I think anybody is ethically entitled to kill any lawyer for any reason.
This disease they have of believing in something called attorney client privilege is nothing more than a privilege. It is not a right and when it affects the common man they discriminate against it most profoundly merits the death penalty for those that send innocents to jail or to death.
These 2 lawyers should be sentenced to 26 years in jail at a minimum.
Good riddance to bad garbage!
Curtis (e21caf) — 3/11/2008 @ 7:17 amCurtis, would you have your attorney release your admission of a murder to keep an innocent man out of prison?
No???
Didn’t think so…and don’t come back with “I wouldn’t kill someone” because you might, especially if you thought you needed to do so…
So, I hope you never have to…and I hope you have an ethical attorney…
Then again, maybe I don’t….
reff (bff229) — 3/11/2008 @ 7:28 amThose lawyers should be striped of their ability to practice law and be held for contempt of court and given 25 years in prison
krazy kagu (79fc72) — 3/11/2008 @ 7:32 amCorrect me if I am wrong, but if even one innocent man is found guilty, then our justice system cannot be allowed to function as it does? What is the point of laws? Have we come so far only to discover we haven’t moved one bit forward at all? Horrible injustice.
Sue (b402ef) — 3/11/2008 @ 8:30 amI find it incredible that people feel like they can waltz in and pronounce these situations to be so clear and devoid of complexity that they are willing to proclaim others corrupt, morally bankrupt, and worthy of death for not coming to the same conclusion they reached. Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Ignoring factors you don’t like doesn’t make you morally better, it marks you as incapable of deep thought.
Linus (cc24db) — 3/11/2008 @ 8:54 amreff. As somebody said, most of us don’t picture ourselves as guilty of murder. We picture ourselves innocent of murder but being prosecuted anyway. Hence, we would not be admitting to have murdered anybody. So, as a matter of public relations to the law, your hypothetical does not apply.
Richard Aubrey (67d560) — 3/11/2008 @ 9:22 amWe also picture ourselves in jail for a crime we didn’t commit. As others have suffered and will suffer. And nobody in the law apparently gives a shit, except to pat themselves on the back for being morally superior for enabling it.
Personally, if such martyrdom is necessary, the attorneys ought to pony up some kind of compensation fund–sort of like taking care of crippled soldiers after we have to send them to war–for those you think need to go to jail although known to be innocent.
Don’t you think?
They spent an awful lot of time trying to establish the authenticity of the claim through photographs of a safe and so forth. I don’t know what they think they proved there. If they had a piece of registered mail from decades ago and they broke the seal on the 60 Minutes program and had some USPS lawyer there with the register and certifying that the seal of the envelope had never been broken prior, it might have meant something.
If they did an official affidavit 26 years ago, like they claim, then they betrayed the confidentiality in front of the witness who notarized the affidavit. It just doesn’t make much sense that they would do this for the purpose of betraying their client at some later date.
I don’t think that confidentiality can end at death because you can damage the reputation of a dead man and endanger his surviving family members. Most clients won’t confide in their lawyers if they think the lawyer will spill the beans after he dies.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/11/2008 @ 9:31 amRichard Aubrey, my hypo is exactly on point, because, if you think the lawyers should break the law/rules to save the innocent man, and put their client into the system, they you, as the person in the system in my hypo, should be as willing to go into the system.
While the lawyers would probably not go to jail, they would most likely be disbarred, as they violated their oath to their client. So, they take a loss; so should you as their client, but, even more, you should take that loss BEFORE they do, since it is you that believes in that policy.
Your point, that we don’t generally picture ourselves in jail for crimes, is only one side of the point, as you showed. But, it is a valid side of the point, and if you want the rules to work, then they have to be reasonable for both sides of the point. The rules cannot be perfect.
reff (bff229) — 3/11/2008 @ 9:37 amI asked about these guys. Even back then, they were excellent, experienced attorneys. Among the elite in the Cook County Public Defender’s Office. I am confident that they considered all the options and all the ramifications and came to the right decision. I am also confident that the effect on their careers was the least, if any, of their considerations.
I know, for a fact, that at that time Illinois did not have use immunity — only transactional immunity. I doubt, strongly, that State’s Attorney Bernard Carey would have granted transactional immunity to their client in order to present exculpatory evidence in Logan’s case.
Further, I know intimately the death penalty defense culture. It is extremely pro-client. I, myself, have advanced frivolous, vexatious, time-delaying arguments in a death penalty case which would have subjected me to a fine and costs and possibly discipline in a civil case.
We had the case of Jeanine Nicarico, too, in Illinois. A convicted murderer and child molester, Brian Dugan, “confessed” that he was the real perpetrator. The DuPage County State’s Attorney refused to grant him immunity to testify in the retrials of Cruz and Hernandez. Nonetheless, they were acquitted in the third trial. The State’s Attorney was indicted for obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury by a special prosecutor. He was acquitted, but I took special schadenfreude in his indictment. I had dealt with him when he was still an Assistant. He only cared about convictions and not “doing justice”.
nk (5ce644) — 3/11/2008 @ 9:45 amCorrection: The Cook County State’s Attorney in 1982 was Richard M. Daley, the present mayor of Chicago.
nk (5ce644) — 3/11/2008 @ 9:51 amReff.
Richard Aubrey (67d560) — 3/11/2008 @ 10:52 amYou say so. Where is the fund for compensating these known innocents? Are you a lawyer. You made any contributions to it?
Or should we insist just those attorneys who enable the jailing of the innocent pay up?
And I’m not talking about the guys the Innocence Project gets out, much to the dismay of the shithead prosecutors who didn’t get a chance to destroy the evidence, and who get an award from the state.
I’m talking about the guys who are, almost a matter of pride–see how tough our lawyer rules are–jailed while known by someone who could free them to be innocent.
We don’t have a fund. We don’t have a rule requiring or suggesting a fund. Will I donate? Probably not until I need it. And, I’m not a lawyer, I’m a school teacher.
Should the attorneys be suspended, arrested, jailed? No, they didn’t break any existing rules that I know of, and you don’t know of any either.
The Innocence Project is a great thing, and I wish it weren’t needed. But, I don’t seem to hear much about cases of prosecutorial misconduct leading to cases the Innocence Project get off on. I do hear about cases where they were able to prove innocence after the fact, and that is great. But, I’ve also seen where poor defense lawyers caused some of that, and don’t hear of many disbarments there either.
You’re argument, however, avoids the question of whether or not the rules are right, or should be followed.
The rules are right, and should be followed. We have 200+ years of jurisprudence to back this, and while the rules aren’t perfect, they are better than the alternative. (And, please, don’t whine about the alternative being 26 years in prison; I just said the rules aren’t perfect. Please remember that we have tons and tons of guilty persons walking the streets free because of those same rules, and I personally hate that idea much more).
reff (bff229) — 3/11/2008 @ 11:10 amnk – My mother’s firm did a lot of work on the Rolando Cruz / Hernandez cases. A real travesty.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/11/2008 @ 11:11 amYeah, I read the book about that. It’s one of several books that have contributed to my perception that there is a problem with wrongfully convicted people on Death Row.
Going back to a point I made in my post, though: where do you think those defendants would be today but for the death penalty? I suspect they’d still be in prison.
Patterico (4d2d72) — 3/11/2008 @ 11:19 amSomething we too easily forget:
“Life isn’t Fair!”
Deal with it the best way you can.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/11/2008 @ 11:26 amDrew.
Hope you get some real lab work on the concept.
My point is that these guys–call them Logans–get jack from the system even after it’s acknowledged the system wronged them.
There is something wrong about a known innocent being in jail–I hope I’m not going to fast for anyone here–and I’d be interested in any ideas for fixing that.
Never seen one, including a lengthy discussion at Volokh.
It’s as if these guardians of law and justice don’t give a shit.
Richard Aubrey (67d560) — 3/11/2008 @ 12:24 pmJD #22,
Was your mother with Jed Stone’s office, by any chance? My first criminal appeal was a case from Jed Stone.
nk (5ce644) — 3/11/2008 @ 12:38 pmI’ve followed both of these threads with interest. Something I haven’t seen mentioned yet is the role that is played by administrative officials in situations that fall between *real life* justice and the technicalities embedded in the law as has been noted here. Talking commuting of sentences, etc., Roger Clemency comes to mind.
That is, does not a governor or the President have the authority to provide overriding ‘fixes’ for such cases? If so, does the client/attorney privilege still prevail even though a commutation of a sentence, for example, would seem to be an extra-judicial act? Just wondering…because say the man who was incarcerated for 26 years had his case presented outside of the justice system in a non-public, confidential setting, could the two attorneys present their confession scenario in such a way as to not precipitate any actions on the part of the justice system, either against their revelations or against their client, the confessor?
Secondarily, does a commutation of one person’s sentence lead to the inability to try another for the crime in question? To me, the answer would be no, in that, prior convictions aren’t allowed as considerations in present cases. So, in effect, each trial stands on its own, independent of all others. And that well-worn movie device cliche of double jeopardy involves just one individual.
Speaking as the ultimate non-lawyer, now, so leave off with diatribes, okay? Just asking, I have no beefs one way or the other…
allan (d3a4ae) — 3/11/2008 @ 1:06 pmInteresting question, allan. A commutation would not affect a subsequent defendant but why shouldn’t an unreversed conviction? Why shouldn’t there be collateral estoppel against the State?
And yes, the attorney-client privilege is only a rule of evidence and no jurisdiction need recognize it. Regardless of the consequences. As I mentioned in the other thread, the U.S. Congress does not. (We tried to litigate it, once, as part of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but the appellate court sidestepped the issue and decided the case on other grounds. I have not kept up with subsequent cases if any.)
nk (5ce644) — 3/11/2008 @ 1:48 pmThanks for considering the questions, NK. I’m big on finding workable solutions, so just rolling this dilemma around in my head it occurred to me that no one was thinking beyond the courtroom, i.e., the justice system itself. That’s when I thought about having an outside entity bridge the gap between the sense of injustice toward an innocent man and the technicalities in the law re attorney-client privilege. Just seemed logical to this layman that the administration wing of our govt already does these ‘adjustments’, and would be one way to solve such standoffs. In this instance, the innocent man would have had not been imprisoned, although not exonerated. The two lawyers would be relieved of their burden of the attorney-client privilege. And the actual murderer would still be open to indictment. Nguyen, nguyen, nguyen.
My main doubt is still whether the attorneys would be bound by a-c privilege, perhaps not legally, but ethically in the commutation scenario. And the ethics question was pounded rather extensively in the prior thread. Each side staking claim to the higher ground. I see the rationales on both side.
allan (d3a4ae) — 3/11/2008 @ 5:22 pmOk. The attorney-client privilege prevents the authorities from compelling either the attorneys or the client to reveal the communications between them. It is only a rule of evidence and whether a tribunal honors it depends on the rules of evidence that tribunal has adopted.
The lawyer’s duty to safeguard the confidences and secrets of his client is what binds the lawyer. It is a much broader and more stringently enforced duty. For example, in this case, the lawyers for Wilson could not have gone to Logan’s lawyers and said “You know what, Wilson committed the crime Logan is charged with. Send out your investigators to develop the evidence against Wilson for your defense.”
nk (5ce644) — 3/11/2008 @ 5:38 pm“That’s when I thought about having an outside entity bridge the gap between the sense of injustice toward an innocent man and the technicalities in the law re attorney-client privilege.”
You’ve hit it nicely, allan. To laypeople this is reprehensible, to those who live in a courtroom its about the rules of the game. If anything this thread has revealed how hard it is to bridge and reconcile that gap. In and of itself, your question itself brings some clarity. (now to read nk’s responses).
Dana (c77252) — 3/11/2008 @ 5:49 pmIf people want to believe that lawyers following rules that have been developed and refined over 200+ years is just a game, then surgeons’ operating room procedures, pharmacists’ practice procedures, and accountants’ Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures are no more than the adult versions of Chutes and Ladders. On the other hand, I hope people can take into consideration that the law needs rules and procedures or it is no more than the subjective opinions and feelings of whoever happens to be in charge at the time.
I think it’s fair to suggest this rule should be changed because of the hardship and injustice it caused but that doesn’t mean it should be changed without discussion and analysis. Many of you have already raised the possibility of a rule change and I would bet money that the ABA and several state supreme courts and bar organizations will consider changing the rules to cover this situation.
FWIW, these organizations consider rule changes all the time based on complaints, cases, and concerns raised by laymen and lawyers. The law may change slowly but it does change.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:06 pmSo far, DRJ, I’ve seen no one in either thread propose a change that did not completely ignore the purposes of the confidentiality rule.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:12 pmMaybe, SPQR, but I think most simply want the rules to find a better way to handle this problem.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:18 pm“If people want to believe that lawyers following rules that have been developed and refined over 200+ years is just a game…”
DRJ, I certainly hope you weren’t referring to my comment in #31, as it was just a quick phrase to use and certainly doesn’t indicate any lack of respect or regard for our justice system. Quite the contrary, if I didn’t have such an obvious realization of how fortunate we are to have this system of law, flaws and all, I would not have spent so much time attempting to understand and learn from the two posts on this matter.
Dana (c77252) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:19 pmNo, Dana, I’ve been thinking about this since last night. There is a recurring theme in these threads that legal rules are arbitrary and should be tossed out every time something bad happens.
The rules are there for a reason, just the way funny-sounding (to us) operating room rules are there for a reason. It’s usually because something bad or several bad things happened when the rule wasn’t there. Changing the rule without considering those consequences can make things worse, not better.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:22 pmDRJ, I’m not sure that there is a solution to the defense attorney’s situation that would not include some form of “secret” court/agency, and I’m just as scared of that as I am of someone who doesn’t believe in reasonable rules nullifyiny a jury….
reff (59b2ad) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:22 pmReff,
The rules already make exceptions for lawyers to breach the confidence in certain situations, and I think it’s possible that ethics committees can craft an exception for this situation. It may be that it can’t be done without doing too much damage to the privilege, but I’d like to let them wrestle with it first.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:27 pmchas: “as i asserted in another thread they were just trying to keep their job. they destroyed a man’s life so they could continue to practice law.”
Yes, and basically you were flat out wrong – repetition notwithstanding.
“if lawyer “ethics” cant deal w/ this one in a million type situation than someone needs to re-think the whole code you guys live by.”
I’m looking forward to a serious suggestion that actually understands the purpose of attorney / client communications confidentiality. A suggestion from someone who understands why the rule exists ie., the tradeoffs and damage that undermining the rule does. Until then, I’m not going to take such comments seriously.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:48 pmI’m rather frustrated at the fuzzy thinking going on in this and the other thread.
Creating an exception for these kind of statements in the rule of confidentiality will not result in a single innocent person being freed in fact. All it will do will prevent any criminal from telling his attorney that kind of information included in whatever exception the indignant here create.
So defense attorney’s will have less information to work with, and no one actually benefited.
That’s all that would result.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/11/2008 @ 7:05 pmDRJ, I did read here where the exception for death penalty cases was possible…and I don’t have a problem with an exception here if one is possible…I’m with you and SPQR, and I’m not a lawyer….I don’t get people who don’t understand that our Nation has been arguing just these points for 200+ years, and still don’t have this problem solved. I’d be willing to be (but not google) that this isn’t the first case of this type to gain some fame….
I have a question you might explain: I thought this privilage was basically a “law” but I seem to be reading that it is just rules. Can you clarify or explain the difference for this novice?
Thanks for all you do here…
reff (59b2ad) — 3/11/2008 @ 7:33 pmreff, some people are mixing up two things. The first is that there is an ethical rule that requires attorneys to keep their clients’ confidences. Violation of it is an ethical rule that subjects the attorney to discipline and potentially suit for damages for the violation.
Secondly, there are rules of evidence, the attorney-client privilege, that make testimony about what a person told his attorney inadmissable in court. So long as the conditions for the privilege exist, any testimony would be barred – even that of a passing person who eavesdropped unknowingly upon the conversation, phone wiretaps etc. etc. Testimony by persons not otherwise bound by the ethical rules might still be barred – so long as the confidence was not knowingly waived by the client.
Two different things being mixed up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/11/2008 @ 8:21 pmI am not a lawyer and never will be. Perhaps one could explain just what benefit society reaps from this attorney-client privilege? The comments seem to dance about this as if there is tremendous benefit to society and to justice by upholding as a mystery any given persons guilt until after some sort of trial. Why? If the dumb felon has stupidly informed officers of the court that he did in fact do the crime then let him do the time. That works for me and I think most of us would prefer it.
If the client does not confess to an officer of the court and maintains his innocence then he will get a fair trial despite this lack of attorney client privilege. Won’t he?
It is rather sickening to read the words of those who find it both moral and ethical to knowingly let an innocent man go to jail for 26 years because of this privilege they believe so deeply in. I thought only lawyers could so twist the meaning of both morality and ethics.
I’m still for shooting them.
regards,
Curtis (e21caf) — 3/11/2008 @ 8:52 pmCurtis
Curtis, society benefits in that people can trust that what they tell their lawyers will be kept confidential. That way, people can get the full benefit of the right to counsel in criminal cases.
If the ethical rule and its associated priviledge did not exist, then the ability of the state to make an attorney tell what he’d been told by the client would mean that clients would not fully communicate with their attorneys and they would not get the full benefit of the constitutional right to counsel.
Why is it that you do not see this?
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/11/2008 @ 8:55 pmOh, and Curtis, I shoot back.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/11/2008 @ 9:00 pmThis reminds me of the case when a rape victim changed her testimony and said that the person she identified as the rapist was in fact, not the rapist.
Problem was, her change was not admissible in court. I could not understand how a judicial system could not allow a man to regain his freedom based on the very words of his accuser. Then someone explained me that if a court would allow such ‘redactions’, it would lead to terrible consequences – such as a criminals friends threatening a witnesses with violence to family members if they did not reverse the testimony.
Long way of my asking: Do we want a system where the client would not tell their own attorney the truth due to the possibility that the attorney would publicize the conversation ?
seaPea (1a7ca9) — 3/11/2008 @ 9:34 pm“Problem was, her change was not admissible in court. I could not understand how a judicial system could not allow a man to regain his freedom based on the very words of his accuser. Then someone explained me that if a court would allow such redactions, it would lead to terrible consequences – such as a criminals friends threatening a witnesses with violence to family members if they did not reverse the testimony.”
seePea,
I’d bet serious money the situation you describe never happened. Such a change in testimony would ALWAYS be admissible. If it wasn’t, by some unimaginable fluke, the case would be automatically reversed.
Patterico (86fbfb) — 3/11/2008 @ 10:03 pmAnd criminals’ friends do threaten witnesses. Routinely. Then they change their stories as a result. Routinely.
Their changed testimony is always admissible. But if they have been threatened and we can prove it, that’s admissible too.
Juries usually get it.
Patterico (86fbfb) — 3/11/2008 @ 10:05 pmSPQR,
You don’t seem to understand the question. I asked what were the benefits to society and you trotted back with a claim that felons need to have faith in the amoral and dishonest and unethical behavior of their given lawyer in order that some sort of facade of justice be maintained here. I don’t happen to agree. If a felon is so stupid as to maintain that he can coopt his lawyer mouthpiece into finding justification for raping and burying alive a little girl than I happen to feel that such a lawyer should be shot for going along in furthering such a defense. This argument is not subordinated by facts in just this case but is an indictment of the entire criminal judicial system. “Have you noticed how it is referred to as a ‘criminal’ judicial system?
I think I’m a way better shot from any distance than you are. I’ve been in the military for the last 26 years.
regards,
Curtis (e21caf) — 3/11/2008 @ 11:49 pmCurtis
SPQR,
I reread what you yourself committed to writing and ask you just one question. Where is justice and the rule of law?
SPQR spake
“Curtis, society benefits in that people can trust that what they tell their lawyers will be kept confidential. That way, people can get the full benefit of the right to counsel in criminal cases.
If the ethical rule and its associated priviledge did not exist, then the ability of the state to make an attorney tell what he’d been told by the client would mean that clients would not fully communicate with their attorneys and they would not get the full benefit of the constitutional right to counsel.
Why is it that you do not see this?”
You openly admit that you don’t care about justice or the rule of law in your own words above. I don’t worry about the state’s coercion of testimony from a felon’s lawyer. You just admitted that as a lawyer you would lie like a rug and do every single thing in your power as an attorney to obstruct justice and the rule of law and then you demanded sympathy for you amoral point of view.
It’s people like you that keep criminals on the street………….and feel good about it. Would that all of them preyed on people like you.
regards,
Curtis (e21caf) — 3/12/2008 @ 12:02 amCurtis
After watching the segment, I can only hope that these two despicable examples of the legal industry get to see their own families decimated by the same industry moments before their own very painful and drawn out death.
Hard and harsh, DAAUM straight it is! FAIR? Probably not, but who cares? REALLY?
I was so very wrong in declaring they should be committed to the same prison/same cell.
Patt, I think you have a better chance of convincing us of the validity of the raid on that 90 yr old Kathren Johnson, who attempted to defend herself with a gun, only to find out the cops not only lied, (to get the warrant), but also shot themselves and her! Then planted drugs to support their lies!
Totally self serving pieces of excrement! Or should one say, typical lawyers/cops/LE reps?
SPQR is probably a AHOTW contender on no less than 100 sites. Probably needs to get laid, and possibly hit a doobie and for sure needs a reality check. He is but a tool, maybe now he might understand how big a tool he is. But I rather doubt it. (attorney EGO thing understand).
After all he is FINE with an INNOCENT man spending life behind bars to preserve his beloved PROCESS!
Hey Squirt, FU, today, tomorrow, and like forever as well!
In closing directed to patt.
Do you condone sending an innocent man to prison for a crime you know he/she did not commit?
You speak he goes free, (as he should), you don’t, he may die in an 8×10.
(prepping for the dependable hypo/dermic from the left coast on that one).
TC (1cf350) — 3/12/2008 @ 1:42 amSeePea #47,
Are you talking about the Gary Dotson case? The problem was not that Cathleen Crowell’s testimony was not admissible — it was that there was no judicial proceeding for it to be admissible in. It was six years after the trial and all appeals had been exhausted and all limitations periods for collateral proceedings had expired. Nonetheless, Governor Thompson convened the parole board to “try” the case and Crowell’s recantation was heard and Dotson’s sentence was commuted. The law has since change and now cases can be re-opened in court on the grounds of actual innocence.
nk (5ce644) — 3/12/2008 @ 4:07 amTC,
You seem to have a problem with people keeping their word and doing their sworn duty, whether it’s jurors or lawyers. Being a lying, treacherous, oathbreaking weasel is a strange kind of morality that you’re advocating.
nk (5ce644) — 3/12/2008 @ 4:30 amnk #53 – Patterico #48,
it was the case where the Governor of whatever state it was got involved in questioning the victim. And the guy’s witness was of no help with their ‘The Love Boat’ testimony as the show wasn’t on TV at the time. It was definitely after the guy had been convicted and in jail for a few times. And was the time when I lost all respect for Katie Curic when after the whole situation was over she asked the accuser and the falsely accused to hug.
As to whether or not recanted testimony after a verdict being allowed in court was an issue, I’ll have to leave that to the lawyers who remember the situation. But I still think my question is valid: do we as a society want a system where a person does not feel free to disclose the truth to the person’s representative lawyer?
seaPea (1a7ca9) — 3/12/2008 @ 9:35 amCurtis, you went to the trouble of quoting my comment but did not bother to actually address it. In fact, all you did was write lies about what I have written. I don’t lie and I don’t obstruct justice – but you want to undermine our adversarial system of justice by destroying the ability of defense attorneys to communicate with all of their clients. Grow up and deal with the issues instead of juvenile frothing.
TC, of course I don’t condone sending an innocent man to prison. But the defense attorneys did not do that. In your little despicable foul mouthed tirade, you only show that you still are not dealing the issues I’ve brought up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/12/2008 @ 9:45 amLawyers find this complicated because morality is, to lawyers and courts, wholly irrelevant.
As a police officer, I was required to report the false arrest of innocent people. Lawyers should be held to a similar standard and suffer the same punishment that bad cops deserve. Factually-guilty individuals and their lawyers have no moral right to cause the incarceration of innocent people.
Clark Baker (93da83) — 3/12/2008 @ 10:18 amClark Baker, as a police officer, you don’t have confidential communications with clients. Your analogy is silly. “Factually-guilty” individuals have a right to counsel – a right you ignore evidently since you think you have a right to coopt the clients’ attorney to serve the state instead of his client.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/12/2008 @ 10:27 amOkay, as much as I don’t like the result of this case, here is an attempt to explain why it is necessary.
You are an upstanding individual who is wrongly accused of being an embezzler. Your case gets wide media attention because of the amount of money involved. During trial prep, the prosecutor provides a list of people to testify against you. When your attorney asks you what you know about one of the people, you deny ever meeting him. This is a lie as you have occasionally bought some weed from him for “recreational use”.
He was recently put away for drug sales and can see a reduced sentence for his testimony against you so he makes up a believable story about selling you some weed just after you made off with the cash and how you pulled the money out of a briefcase full of money on the night of the crime. He gets the relevant dates and times from the media coverage of the crime.
Because your lawyer would have to turn you in for your purchases of weed since there is no client-attorney privilege, you lie to the attorney. Because of this lie, your attorney doesn’t follow up on the investigation of this guy and is unprepared to counter this man’s testimony. You go to jail because you lied to your attorney.
See the need now for client-attorney privilege?
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 3/12/2008 @ 11:24 amCurtis, Clark –
What you’re failing to take into account, and what I tried to point out in the other thread, is that the client-attorney confidentiality operates in all cases, whether or not they are criminal or civil cases. The confidentiality is the client’s not the attorney’s. That means any client talking to any attorney, no matter the subject, is confidential – at the client’s will. It works for anything – whether it’s a crime like murder or embezzlement, a non-crime like adultery in a divorce case, or an “event” like a real estate title defect not discovered by the buyer prior to closing.
The client confidentiality provisions typically get highlighted in criminal cases, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only place it operates.
Lysander (b9a564) — 3/12/2008 @ 12:14 pm#60
“What you’re failing to take into account, and what I tried to point out in the other thread, is that the client-attorney confidentiality operates in all cases, whether or not they are criminal or civil cases. ”
I do understand this and did not mean to imply otherwise. I was simply trying to give one simplistic example of where client-lawyer privilege is critical to a fair outcome in a trial, either civil or criminal. Since some people where asking what good it serves to society, and several had made references to the war on drugs, I though this example would be a situation that they could envision.
Like I said, I don’t like the results in this case, but I understand the reasons why it happened and I don’t really have a better way of doing things to guarantee that this never happens again.
I think many of our problems with the legal profession stem from making many laws trying to cover all bases rather than having a few core laws bolstered by a strong dose of common sense and judges actually being hired to exercise judgment. This, however, would inevitably lead to each judge acting differently when faced with the same circumstances. This has happened in the past which lead to mandatory sentencing guidelines. Which cause just as much injustice as allowing the judge to set the sentences did.
So, it is a no win situation until the entire human race evolves into a just, caring society. 😎
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 3/12/2008 @ 4:06 pmJay,
Interesting sample case of the the privilege in action. I would just make a few points. The guy is innocent of one crime and guilty of another crime. Justice is not denied if he ends up in jail. It would appear that he is falsely incarcerated but using illegal drugs is illegal isn’t it?
What would be affect of his lawyer “turning him in” for buying illegal drugs? There is no evidence of the crime, he doesn’t have drugs on him and nobody else saw the transaction. In short, in the absence of any evidence of a crime I don’t believe that it would be prosecuted.
All this talk of a privilege makes me wonder just how many fine ethical and morally straight attorneys are wandering the land with the complete details of OJ’s killing 2 innocent people in their memory. How do such people sleep at night?
regards,
Curtis (e21caf) — 3/12/2008 @ 6:13 pmCurtis