For nearly 26 years, the affidavit was sealed in an envelope and stored in a locked box, tucked away with the lawyer’s passport and will. Sometimes he stashed the box in his bedroom closet, other times under his bed.
It stayed there — year after year, decade after decade…
It said…an innocent man was behind bars. His name was Alton Logan. He did not kill a security guard in a McDonald’s restaurant in January 1982.
“In fact,” the document said, “another person was responsible…”
But, the ethics of lawyer-client privilege – as defined by the great state of Illinois in the Land of Justice for All – allowed two public defenders to keep hidden the evidence that could free an innocent man.
I’m not going to read the referenced article, because this is all so common and all so unnecessary showing one of the real foibles of our legal system.
Rather than keep an innocent man in jail, on affidavit from the attorney, the local DA should provide immunity to the actually guilty person so that he can come forward and give his evidence.
Justice is not justice when its one sided.
The foible==the systems over reliance on “rules” which turns the system into a game, a game that too often is unfair, misguided, and not just. It is final though, which it champions, wrongly, as the justification for so much stupidity.
A couple of lawyers are gonna burn in hell. What else is new.
There are always costs to be paid in any compromise. Unfortunately, not every situation is a win-win situation.
#2–Pirate==NO, you have it exactly wrong. Lawyers in these cases can be punished by their Bar Associations if they reveal their cleints involvement in crimes. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT.
#3–Sam==quite right but the “worse” compromise doesn’t need to be enshrined. Please think past the status quo.
#4 Drink some coffee you old grouch.
#5–Pirate==No thanks. I’m having a double cappacino. I don’t know which is more stimulating, the caffeine or your lack of insight. Both make me feel great.
Lawyer-client confidentially is integral to the entire legal system. Your lawyer is supposed to be working for you, representing you, if you can’t expect that person to do that and not work with the authorities to incriminate you then the relationship is untenable. Of course some people would cynically like a world without lawyers, but the truth is that they are a necessity in any modern legal system. There is no way to make the laws that govern a modern society simple enough to be thoroughly understood by the layman so that he can defend himself properly in court.
As I read this story the other day I kept thinking, “Fuck Ethics”, and there should be a law that prevents this sort of ethical dilemma.
There can’t be a law that prevents this sort of ethical dilemma – it’s either going to not cover the problem (which is what happened here), or it’s going to go overbroad to the point where a lawyer won’t be able to work with his client because the client will never be able to trust his lawyer.
This is an unfortunate case where two ethical lawyers did what they could do. Could they have (morally) gone a step further, turned the information over to the court, and risked repercussion? Sure. But that’s a decision for the individual lawyer – it has nothing to do with the laws themselves.
(It’s the same for any profession. If you know your boss is doing something fishy, you can rat out your boss and risk being fired, or you can keep your trap shut and keep your job. The situation is no different, but for the stakes being unfortunately higher.)
Well, gee whiz. Too many posters here have the issue a bit fuzzy.
There is NO ETHICAL DILEMMA presented.
The lawyer is ethically and legally bound to keep the information secret. He has taken an oath to do so. If he violates this oath, he can be prosecuted for it. WHERE IS THE DILEMMA?
I’m sure you would all agree its better for 10 guilty men to go free than to convict one innocent man—right? DILEMMAS?
In this case, it is better that 10 innocent men rot away in jail than one guilty man lose his right to counsel.
Now, just for those of you who are sputtering, JUST BECAUSE you don’t like a moral, ethical, legal requirement enforced by law and by 100′s of years of precedent and good social engineering values, does not mean there is a dilemma. It just means YOU AREN’T ETHICAL.
Deal with it.
#6
Hi again bobbo-the-troll(in training),
Go sit in the corner, its time-out for you junior. Tell you what, you can win this one, I don’t spank children on Sundays. Babble on all you like, Happy holidays
#10
What he said, jeesh you need to chill out on that fancy-man coffee.
@#10: You don’t think officers of the court have an ethical obligation to make sure someone they know for a fact is innocent, isn’t punished? They don’t have to implicate their client — just convince the DA that the defendant is innocent.
This sort of thing is why I have an undying hatred for cops, prosecutors and lawyers in general. A pox on them all.
#13–Sean==of course I do. See my post #1.
Words have meaning though. This example of “legal ethics” is really one of the best.
Do words and ideas mean what I think they do (My post #1) or do they mean what society has decided (My post #10).
One interesting thing about the law, anyone can have their own opinion, but when there is a contest/disagreement, it is the law that decides.
Some people can’t handle it, in fact, maybe most.
>>This sort of thing is why I have an
>>undying hatred for cops, prosecutors
>>and lawyers in general. A pox on them all.
I’m with you there, Probe-meister.
#16–Mustard==and your alternative dispute resolution system is what?
>>and your alternative dispute resolution
>>system is what?
Don’t have one yet, Mister Bobbolina. That’s why I’m not running for POTUS or District Attorney.
What I DO have, though, is an undying hatred for most cops, prosecutors, and lawyers.
There’s a certain type of person that’s drawn towards those “professions”, and it’s the last kind of person in the world who should be trusted with promoting Truth, Justice, and The American Way. Most of those dickwads shouldn’t be trusted with monitoring Dumpster(R) usage, much less have people’s lives in their hands.
Maybe closer oversight/ regulation, and immediate tasering of anyone caught violating the trust? That would be an easy one to get past a Dumbyan signature, if it weren’t for the fact that most of the people who work for him are carrying out his dirty work.
#18–Mustard==totally pointless to criticize without offering an alternative. Childlike and silly.
So you want “someone” to immediately taser anyone caught violating the trust? And there you have the difficulty of the issue you won’t even begin to rationally address.
Not good.
Bobbo,
Once again you have carried the torch. Quite well too.
The police, judges, and prosecutors are charged with putting the right person in jail. The defense lawyer is charged with giving his client his best effort and trust. So before you blame the lawyers who protected their client, maybe you could look at those who actually convicted an innocent man.