Posted on 03/11/2008 6:48:00 AM PDT by radar101
Attorney-Client Privelege Kept Them From Speaking Up Before Man Spent 26 Years In Prison
Alton Logan has spent the last 26 years in jail on a murder conviction that's now being called into question.
Two local attorneys kept a secret for more than a quarter of a century. They knew about a wrongful conviction, but could not say anything.
CBS 2's Dorothy Tucker reports they finally told their story on "60 Minutes" Sunday night, and went to court Monday.
Alton Logan has spent 26 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit. In 1983 he was wrongly convicted of shooting a guard at a McDonald's. Back then, two men, attorneys Dale Conventry and Jamie Kunz knew Logan was innocent, because they were representing the real killer, Andrew Wilson, who admitted to them he had committed the murder.
But that information didn't become public knowledge until Wilson died last fall and the attorneys finally told their story on "60 Minutes" March 9. They said they kept the secret because they couldn't violate attorney-client privilege.
"I could not figure out a way and still cannot figure out a way, how we could have done something to help Alton Logan that would not have put Andrew Wilson in jeopardy of another capital case," Kunz said.
Logan accepts the explanation, but it still makes him angry.
"Why would you allow this person to be prosecuted, convicted, sent to prison for all these years?" he said.
Logan has been fighting to get his conviction overturned ever since.
His case was back in court Monday, and Kunz was present. His knowledge -- spelled out in this affidavit -- that Logan was not responsible for the crime may be considered as evidence to get Logan a new trial. But a new trial could take months, and Logan's family wants the state to free him now.
"My brother been in jail, has been incarcerated… since 1982, 26 years of his life," Tony Logan said. "He didn't get a chance to raise a family, he didn't get a chance to spend time with me and my younger brother here."
And to make sure another innocent man isn't sent to prison because lawyers don't want to violate client-attorney privileges, some attorneys involved in the case talked Monday about the need to make exceptions to the rule. But until that happens, Kunz had a message for Logan.
"I would say you poor son of a b----. I know you're innocent. I believe you're innocent. I'm sorry I couldn't do more. I wish you luck," Kunz said.
Attorneys who don't want to see any changes to the rules of attorney-client privilege say it would hurt the profession.
Those opposed say it's important that clients know they can trust their lawyers, even if they confess to a crime where someone else is being blamed.
That's what happens when you get paid to help guilty people escape justice.
He ought to sue the pants off of both of these guys. If there were truly any justice, he might win.
People need to be able to speak frankly to their attorneys. This is necessary. The fact that these attorneys knew an innocent man was in jail is irrelevant.
To hell with attorney-client privilege. This was just wrong.
Meh. How lawyers can look in the mirror without slitting their throats is beyond me.
If I am truly guilty of that crime I will pay the penalty, not hide behind some canard called “attorney-client privilege.”
Tough cases make bad law. You can’t throw out basic protections for everybody because in one particular case one particular guy was hurt. That would be stupid.
If the real killer had never told his attorneys anything, this guy would still have rotted in jail. And if there was no privilege, the real killer would certainly not have told his attorneys that he committed the crime.
Suppose you are not guilty of the crime, then. Will you pay the penalty anyway, or will you want an attorney you can trust?
So the real killer gets to go free. Wonder if he committed further crimes.
“Attorneys...say it would hurt the profession”
Really...can the public opinion of lawyers get any lower?
Of course the real kiiler went free. The police never caught him! That’s not the lawyer’s fault.
Probably BS! The “real killer” is dead now. What is the proof that he was the real killer. Sounds like “another innocent black man railroaded by white man’s justice” crap story to me.
Looks like the public schools aren’t the only place where the zero-tolerance follies get played out.
I’d contribute to a fund to help him sue these bastards.
And then there is that. I was not going to even get into that.
The attorneys are scum-sucking lying lowlifes until they say something that supports the argument. From that moment on they are saintly crusaders for justice.
They never said what the result of Wilson's trial was. If they successfully represented him and he was acquitted then they should have come forth with the info about Logan. Wilson couldn't have been tried again because it would have been double jeopardy.
I guess I would rather have a guilty man go free than to allow the innocent man to go to jail..........
The real killer was in jail for another crime.
Or do you want to argue that if I hire a lawyer for DUI and happen to metion that I am resposible for a child rape & murder, that information is covered by attorney client privilege?
Only attorney's whose sense of self-importance extends to an almost complete feeling of exemption from the laws they are also resposible to enforce as officers of the court can argue this way.
If I am charged with crime A then I hope I have the sense not to mention crime B. Attorneys are not supposed to be consiglieri or abettors after the fact.
I got no problem with that!
I could be wrong. There have, after all, been some real and true wrongful conviction cases — 99% of them, however, are bogus, pure, BS. I’d like to see (a) what evidence convicted this “innocent” guy, and (b) what evidence the 2 lawyers have. Is it merely their word that some now-dead guy told them he was the real perp? We all know that people give false confessions ALL THE TIME. This is especially likely when there is ZERO chance of the confession hurting you — such as when you “confess” to your lawyer.
They were representing Wilson for a different crime, he could have been charged to the murder.
Attorney client hogwash. Attorneys who hide evidence in the case of an innocent person being incarcerated for a crime need to be charged as accessories to the original perpetrator. I guarantee if you were a person who knew you’d be charged with obstruction. Lawyers are no better than anyone else just “craftier” for lack of a better more descriptive word.
Sadly he will sue the government and the officers that testified against him. The two “lawyers” will get off scott free.
What part of “the guy admitted KILLING someone” do you not understand?
These two attorneys are guilty of protecting a man who confessed to MURDERING someone. The guy was GUILTY of MURDER. Do you understand what MURDER is? It’s a fairly serious crime.
Why so protective of a murderer? Are you hiding something yourself? Sheesh.
I guess there is no black and white about this one is there? It's just a damn shame tho what happened to Mr. Logan......
The guy who "confessed" may have been lying, or these publicity-seeking lawyers may be lying about what they were told.
This guy was given a trial and was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. Yet this should be thrown away based on the word of a dead man? Worse, on the word of a lawyer who says this is what the dead man told him?
Wasn't there a movie like this? The wife was on trial for murdering her husband's lover -- but it was obvious from the testimony that she was covering for him. She was found not guilty and the husband was charged.
At his trial, she confessed and produced the evidence she really did it. He was freed and she couldn't be charged due to double jeopardy.
If there is any justice in this world, this man will sue and take every asset from those scumbag lawyers.
If lawyers were liable for criminal prosecution every time they won a case, it would be difficult to find a lawyer who would try to win.
If you believe the government is always right and the police never make a mistake, then you really don't see any need for effective criminal defense. I find that to be a strange attitude to see on FR, however. I guess we all figure that the government is always wrong and stupid except when it accuses somebody of a crime.
Some days I miss Harpseal more than others...
As horrible as this case is, your statement is incorrect. Attorney-client priviledge covers everything said between a client and his attorney. The fact that the information was regarding a different crime is irrelevant.
Ah, the old, "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't object" argument. 'Bout time...
That is true. But looking at Wilson's lawyers as the cause of that is looking in the wrong direction.
One big problem here is the rate that law schools spit out graduates. Over half of the lawyers out there are lousy barristers and barely got through law school. Now you got online law schools and correspondence law schools. That lowered skill factor relates to crappy representation and the problem we have today where lawyers write the laws and mold them to suit their vocation and restrict the common man. People complain about our elected officials but think about how many of them are lawyers! Darm near every one of them. The ones that are not have to have a chief of staff or adviser that is one so they can understand teh crap they write in DC.
It is a perpetual ponzi scheme meant to secure their hold over the serfdom via the convoluted and excessive laws they right.
?????!!!!!!! Why the heck not?!
A possible solution to this could be found in a post trial situation, that in a closed post-conviction but pre-sentencing hearing, in which a third attorney could speak with the judge in chambers, with the defense and prosecution attorneys present.
The attorney would have to be able to offer “incontrovertible evidence” that another person, not a principal of the trial, had committed the crime, and that with an offer of immunity from prosecution, evidence could be submitted to the judge proving innocence of the convicted.
This would be a very limited opportunity.
First of all, the police and prosecutor would have had to consider the case closed, with no further investigation or suspicions of guilt. Other trial principals would have to be excluded to prevent “mutual confessions” protecting them both.
Second, that there was no trial error that could result in the conviction being overturned on appeal.
Third, the judge would have to offer non-revocable immunity from prosecution at all levels, federal and State. This limits the use of this to federal courts, unless the judge could obtain the cooperation of the federal prosecutor in offering immunity as well.
Fourth, the evidence would have to be presented by the attorney, not by the real criminal, to preclude them being given immunity for extraneous crimes. That is, the attorney would be very limited in what evidence they could present that would be exculpatory, to that precisely related to the trial, since there could be only limited cross-examination. And this is a major stumbling block.
Fifth, the judge would have to agree that the evidence is sufficient to set aside the verdict. This could be a much higher standard than “the preponderance of the evidence” or even “beyond a reasonable doubt”, to perhaps as high as “completely innocent”, or at least “not having committed any other felony”.
So it would take an extraordinary exculpation indeed to open the door for a judge to set aside his or a jury’s verdict. Far more than for a typical appeal.
Just because a particular individual confesses to a certain crime it doesn’t *necessarily* mean he did it.People do confess to crimes they didn’t commit.Perhaps it’s bragging...perhaps the person is simply mistaken (which,IMO,can happen with career criminals).Is the any credible evidence apart from the confession that suggests that the guy is innocent? DNA,perhaps?
Post a link to ONE.
the level of ignorance on this thread is amazing.
Now thats funny right there, I don't care who you are....
This is BS. I thought that there was also a prohibition on KNOWING that your client was guilty and lying on his behalf (even by omission of details). You can block certain areas of questioning but you cannot misrepresent when you KNOW the truth.
>>They said they kept the secret because they couldn’t violate attorney-client privilege. <<
It just proves my theory: What’s moral is not necessarily legal and what’s legal is not necessarily moral.
When your attorney sells you out to another attorney or a DA even if you are innocent, you might feel differently about the “code” of the lawyer.
A good lawyer is very hard to find.
More laws is good for business. And enforcement of laws depends on which ones will fund the system.
Beggers in SF are bad for the bottom line so they get their cases dismissed.
I cannot type.
He wouldn’t get a nickel because they are protected by attorney client privilege.
Why stop there? Let's get rid of all the privileges, such as priest/penitent, doctor/patient, husband/wife . . . throw them all in the slammer. /sarc
they do not offer a J.D. program that I can see.
No, you cannot spell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.