Patterico's Pontifications

4/19/2008

Alton Logan Freed (UPDATE: But Facing Possible Retrial)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:03 pm



Jan Crawford Greenburg reports:

Alton Logan became a free man Friday after an attorney, who knew all along that someone else gunned down a guard on the south side of Chicago, finally broke his silence after 26 years.

. . . .

A month after Logan was arrested, Dale Coventry, a Chicago public defender, stumbled on the real killer, Andrew Wilson, who was one of his clients. . . . Under the rules of attorney-client privilege, Coventry had to keep Wilson’s confession secret.

I wrote about Logan on March 9, in this post.

By the way, I recently discussed the case with a defense attorney I know (but whom I won’t name). He said, without a moment’s hesitation: “Oh, I would have found a way to get the word out.” He said there had to be some back-channel way of letting the cops know who really did it.

It would be interesting to know if Alton Logan’s fate would have been different if Andrew Wilson had been represented by a defense attorney willing to let the cops know what he’d been told. The thing is, armed with nothing more than a rumor of an inadmissible and privileged confession, Logan’s attorney might not have been able to do anything for him after the conviction.

I’m not entirely sure it would have changed a thing.

I’m glad to see Mr. Logan has gotten some of his life back. It’s a tragedy that he was deprived of any of it.

UPDATE: Commenter nk notes that Logan still faces a potential retrial. Hmm. It’s hard to imagine that a retrial would result in a conviction, under the circumstances . . .

21 Responses to “Alton Logan Freed (UPDATE: But Facing Possible Retrial)”

  1. And yes, $10,000.00 bond for capital murder is a strong indication of the judge’s opinion of the strength weakness of the State’s case.

    nk (6b7d4f)

  2. Wow. 26 years. Where were you in 1982? 10,000 bond? Do they really need to get a grand out of they guy they might have locked up unjustly for more than a quarter century?

    Apogee (366e8b)

  3. Prosecutions opening statement in the upcoming new trial; Judge, ladies and gentlemen of the jury the prosecution will take the 5th and rest.

    TC (d16524)

  4. Hopefully the prosecutors simply want to keep Logan in the jurisdiction pending an official review the evidence and witnesses.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  5. Ok DRJ. Is it impossible to just release him under probation while the review commences? If he pays the bond he’s released right? So the only difference is monetary. That’s a pretty small bond if they think someone’s a flight risk.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  6. Apogee,

    Based on what I’ve read, I don’t think new charges are warranted. However, there may be procedures the prosecutor has to follow or reasons why new charges should be considered. My comment was speculation about what those procedures or reasons might be.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  7. Once more, the face of Justice is shamed by Cook County.
    What has America done to be inflicted with Chicago?
    Maybe it’s all that green dye they use in the Illinois River on St. Patrick’s Day?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  8. DRJ,
    My post was actually more of a question, although I probably didn’t phrase it correctly, and it came out snarky. I feel a lot of empathy for a 54 year old guy who’s been locked up quite possibly for no reason from the time he was 28. That’s quite a bit more than a shame.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  9. Apogee,

    I didn’t take your comment as snarky, just concerned, and I assume (and hope) Logan will be released until the case is retried or the charges are dropped. By “keeping him in the jurisdiction,” I was referring to keeping him from leaving the court’s jurisdiction while he’s released.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  10. Logan was not granted a new trial merely on the basis of the Andrew Wilson allegations. That’s not the method of review. Judge Schreier looked at the new evidence in the context of the totality of the State’s case.

    As for the bond, since there are two major felonies involved, capital murder and armed robbery, Logan cannot be released on his own recognizance. $10,000.00 is the minimum amount. In any other case, $50,000.00 would be the normal bond just for the armed robbery alone and no bail at all, usually, for capital murder.

    nk (6b7d4f)

  11. “He said, without a moment’s hesitation: “Oh, I would have found a way to get the word out.” He said there had to be some back-channel way of letting the cops know who really did it.”

    This is rather interesting as the two attorneys involved never seemed to consider this path or were unwilling to take the risk. Patterico, is your friend just more experienced and savvy regarding the ins andouts of back channels, is he sharper and able to find a leeway within the constraints or just a bigger risk taker? I don’t recall reading any lawyers commenting here on the original posts who suggested this option or that they themselves would choose the same thing if it would keep him out of a 26 year sentence. (or perhaps I missed those who did).

    Dana (1b8fba)


  12. Is anyone anywhere taking up a collection to help Mr. Logan re-start his life? If so, we would like to contribute.

    Carol M. (b95f8c)

  13. Is there any indication from the DA as to whether they’ll nolle prosse or retry?

    Pablo (99243e)

  14. Pablo, I imagine that the State’s Attorney is evaluating his case in the same way as he would be were he preparing for trial. Hunting down witnesses and trying to find foundations for twenty-six year old evidence. And, as a general rule, Illinois prosecutors are very restrained about extra-judicial statements, and Cook County more than most. We will probably not know until the next status hearing or maybe the one after that.

    nk (0e6820)

  15. My gut feeling is that this case cannot be retried. The State’s evidence was marginal to begin with. Likely the question is whether Governor Blagojavich will grant him a pardon on the basis of innocence so he can apply for compensation.

    nk (0e6820)

  16. From the State Bar of Illinois, Article VIII, Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (emphasis mine):

    Rule 3.3. Conduct Before a Tribunal
    (a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer SHALL not:
    (2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when disclosure is NECESSARY TO AVOID ASSISTING A CRIMINAL or FRAUDULENT ACT BY THE CLIENT.
    (b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) are CONTINUING DUTIES and apply EVEN IF COMPLIANCE REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY RULE 1.6.

    In my humble opinion, deceiving the court into believing that another man committed a crime is a “fraudulent act by the client.” As such, when the attorneys “failed to disclose” this “material fact,” the attorneys violated their ethical obligation under Rule 3.3(a)(2).

    Since, according to the Rules, 3.3 (candor to the tribunal) trumps 1.6 (maintaining confidential information), the attorneys clearly had an escape valve. They simply chose not to use it.

    Simply our humble opinions,
    Morley Moore and Ingrid Ingram
    for Traton News

    Traton (25567e)

  17. Does anyone know who the original prosecutors were in Logan’s original trial? I know that Scott Arthur and Ray Garza, notorious for their underhanded Machiavellian tactics, prosecuted Edgar Hope. Did they also prosecute Logan?

    Kathy (f5eda0)

  18. Traton #17,

    No. Rule 3.3 could only apply if the PDs were the prosecutors and had called Wilson as a witness against Logan.

    I have said before what the escape valve was. An in camera conference with Logan’s judge.

    nk (1f1707)

  19. Kathy #18,

    Considering that Logan’s case was appealed to the max and there’s no hint that his prosecutors were told that Wilson did it (in fact the story is that nobody was told) what underhanded tactics could there have been by the prosecutors that the courts did not review several times in affirming Logan’s conviction?

    nk (1f1707)

  20. As someone who knew Dale Coventry personally from 1996-2000 I want to give you a little insight to what his personality is like. Mr. Coventry was an amazing teacher, as I’m sure he was an amazing attorney. He was fun to be with, kind, caring, and always willing to help when he could. In my opinion, as someone who knows him….he would have gotten the word out, if he’d found ANY way possible. Being bound by attorney client privilege is more serious than a lot of people think. If you can’t trust your lawyer to represent you correctly, no one would tell their attorney the truth. I think defendents should be able to tell their attorney the truth, so that they can effectively represent them. True, Wilson may have been a horrible man, but once Coventry was assigned to be his public defender, he was stuck

    SamiKat (1b9b1b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0763 secs.