Ethical Conundrum

[kberyldial]

History is full of countries and instances of people, for political or other reason, being run through mockeries for trials and convicted for trying to advance the very freedoms and rights we enjoy in the U.S.

However, the flaw in our legal system albeit defined and healthy, it is open to individuals that use it for personal advance or noteriety. Our country is also full of stories of overzealous prosecutors. (Duke lacrosse) Racist arresting or interrogating officers. Etc. Many of whom believe the defendant at stake, if not guilty now, certainly has been or will be. I would guess the man behind bars in this case was no saint either.

The bigger ethical question in this case is not the 2 lawyers that chose not to break attorney-client privilege, rather the prosecutor(s) that put the innocent man behind bars 20-some years ago.

Could these attorneys have come forward? Yes, and been disbarred. Keep in mind that these are criminal defense lawyers. Many of whom have chosen that area of practice to defend the meek. So ethically, they could be very well in check.

The fact remains, there is no better legal system. We are all given due process and we can all stand before our peers to be judged. Can you believe there are still countries where trials are a formality for your death? As a means of religious or political control? Nothing is certain when opened up to the human influence but our legal system is solid.

 

[jbhtexas]

The bigger ethical question in this case is not the 2 lawyers that chose not to break attorney-client privilege, rather the prosecutor(s) that put the innocent man behind bars 20-some years ago.

I disagree that it is a "bigger" question, but I agree that the problem of false prosecution is one that seems to have become an issue. Maybe it's always been that way, but now with with DNA testing, we are just more able to reverse those incorrect decsions, and are just hearing more about it.

Could these attorneys have come forward? Yes, and been disbarred.

Nobody should be disbarred for preventing an innocent man from going to jail for a crime he didn't commit. Any system that would encourage or promote such is broken...

 

[alaskaguy]

The CBS link for more info on this story:
26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison, Lawyers Tell 60 Minutes They Were Legally Bound From Revealing Secret - CBS News

(CBS) "What did you do to see if there might be some loophole to get everyone out of this fix?" Simon asked the attorneys.

"I researched the ethics of attorney-client privilege as much as I could. I contacted people who are involved in making those determinations. I know Jamie did the same thing," Coventry said.

"I could not figure out a way, and still cannot figure out a way, how we could have done anything to help Alton Logan that would not have put Andrew Wilson in jeopardy of another capital case," Kunz added.

"Couldn’t you have leaked it to somebody? To a reporter, to an administrator, to the governor, to somebody?" Simon asked.

"The only thing we could have leaked is that Andrew Wilson confessed to us. And how could we leak that to anybody without putting him in jeopardy?" Kunz replied. "It may cause us to lose some sleep. But, but I lose more sleep if I put Andrew Wilson’s neck in the in the noose. In terms of my conscience, my conscience is that I did the right thing"

Furthermore, they claim that the information would never have been allowed in a court room proceeding since it would have been a violation of attorney-client privilege.

 

[pulse]

Did I miss something, what happened to the guy who committed the murder? It said he was on trial for killing two police officers. Did he not get convicted of that? I can't believe he didn't fry for that. The lawyers could have told the guys family, the media, everyone. Then others could have testified to that fact at the trial. I suppose the judge could have told the jury to ignore it, but they don't ignore things like that if everyone testifies to that fact.

 

[kberyldial]

I've looked into this more and it seems that Logan was IDed as one of 2 robbers in this case. Wilson was found to have the shotgun in his possession but wasn't one of the 2 IDed. Wilson also subsequently arrested and beaten by now notorious Detective Jon Bunge of the Chicago PD. He suppposedly beat confessions out of and railroaded scores of people during his tenure. His removal and the revelation of these types of practices by the CPD spearheaded a massive shake-up of the CPD. I was living in Chicago at the time and Daley was really under pressure over this - of course his response was to get really red-faced, berate reporters for questioning him and then side-step the whole thing while removing the Chief and other high-ups.

What I've read leaves two questions. Was Wilson the real trigger man? Was Wilson admitting to crimes he didn't commit for some sort of noteriety. It was an ugly era of police induced convictions in Chicago - but it doesn't mean they all were.

Like I said earlier, the system works. The human element within the system is up for debate.

 

[Knownothing]

If it were me I would go ahead and kill the attorneys that were holding that info. Hell I have already spent 26 years in jail for murder. I might as well murder someone and hey these two guys knew all along that I was not the guy. Thus I would kill them.


P.S. I am joking. Kind of.

 

[Stormin]

Something to consider. Without the attorney-client privilege, the two attorneys might not have found out that the man charged was innocent. While it is terrible that an innocent man was put in jail wrongly, I think the BIGGEST thing we should get from this, is that we should abolish the death penalty and adopt a life in prison without parole. There is NO reversal possible in a death penalty situation.

There is no better evidence than this for a reason to abolish the death penalty and adopt a life in prison without parole policy.

 

[keepngoal]

The two lawyers, should have kept their mouth shut (so IMO, they did the right thing there)... But they needed to resign from representing him and tried to find other evidence that the killer wasn't the one on trial. Basically work their butt off trying to do the right thing by proving who really committed murder and not give up the confidentiality.

-keep.

 

[alaskaguy]

If it were me I would go ahead and kill the attorneys that were holding that info. Hell I have already spent 26 years in jail for murder. I might as well murder someone and hey these two guys knew all along that I was not the guy. Thus I would kill them.


P.S. I am joking. Kind of.

How is he to kill his attorneys? He is still in prison.

 

[Phaedrus]

The two lawyers, should have kept their mouth shut (so IMO, they did the right thing there)... But they needed to resign from representing him and tried to find other evidence that the killer wasn't the one on trial. Basically work their butt off trying to do the right thing by proving who really committed murder and not give up the confidentiality.

-keep.

I guess they did everything within their power "which wasn't that hard or inconvenient to do" then.

There is a false analogy, here, but I just cannot put my finger on it, but I think keepngoal's post comes closest.

 

[jbhtexas]

Like I said earlier, the system works. The human element within the system is up for debate.

Any legal system that has an "ethical" (and I use that term very loosely) code in place which prevents a lawyer from presenting evidence to the court, regardless of the circumstances, that would keep an innocent man from going to jail for a crime that he didn't commit cannot be considered one that "works".

 

[Kyle]

Add another clause to 1.6(b):

1.6(b)(2) In the case where the client has confessed to the lawyer the commission of a crime, to prevent an innocent party from being imprisoned for said crime.

Shift everything else down one. The other ones really aren't all that important relative to the first two.

This seems relatively reasonable. Of course, the counter to it is fairly similar to what the reasons for the rule in the first place, namely that people will then not fully disclose things to their lawyers, etc... I also think it could be argued that such an exception is more uncertain than the others, in that a lawyer would need to know who has been or is going to be prosecuted for a crime before they can properly inform their client about the scope of the lawyer-client ethical privilege.

That code allows the lawyer to reveal confidential information to mitigate a financial loss, but does not allow the lawyer to reveal confidential information to prevent an innocent party from going to jail. How messed up is that??? What's more important...money or an innocent person's freedom? According to that code, it's money.

The second and third exceptions to the rule only apply to situations in which the client has utilized the lawyer's services to facilitate the past or future commission of a crime. They are really more for the protection of the lawyer than anything - if the client commits crimes or frauds independent of the lawyer's services the privilege still attaches. In the event that the client used the lawyer's services to frame someone else for a crime, I think it could be argued that being in jail substantially injures someone's financial interests. The rule addresses financial concerns because the far more common situation would involve the lawyer finding out their client is a conman.

Maybe this is an unfair characterization on my part, but it seems to me that in our legal system, when the rights of the violated or innocent come into conflict with the rights of the guilty, our system seeks to protect the rights of the guilty over the rights of the innocent/violated. That's not justice, and it needs to change.

We really have to strike a balance. The interests of the violated or innocent (usually the victims of a crime) are usually in direct conflict the rights of an accused. Adjusting the balance in either direction will usually results in either more innocent people going to jail, or more guilty ones getting off.

This isn't rocket science (although lawyers have apparently turned it into such)...just do the right thing. It's not right for an innocent person to be punished for a crime he did not commit while the person guilty of that crime goes free. If the system is not encouraging the right thing, then the system is broken.

I don't think its nearly as simple as you make it out to be. As I've previously mentioned, adherence by the profession to a rule of confidentiality may have actually saved a life in this case. It is far from clear to me that a different rule would produce better results.

 

[Kyle]

Any legal system that has an "ethical" (and I use that term very loosely) code in place which prevents a lawyer from presenting evidence to the court, regardless of the circumstances, that would keep an innocent man from going to jail for a crime that he didn't commit cannot be considered one that "works".

Would that still be your contention if you knew that adherence to that rule actually resulted in fewer innocent people going to jail?

 

[BryceC]

I think there is definitely room for debate on the role of confidentiality in the profession, but I also think that a legitimate alternative has to be offered up in order to really argue that the current rule sucks.

I'm pretty sure the guy that that was in prison for 26 years can argue that the current rule sucks... you know since he lost the best years of his life, his reputation, and probably any other conceivable thing worth living for.

Personally I'd rather get the death penalty than be imprisoned for 26 years.

Regardless, there needs to be a way that lawyers can anonymously contact someone to protect the freedom of an innocent person.

 

[Kyle]

Hmmm.... And here I was, thinking that a lawyer couldn't knowingly aid and abet a crime... Just like a "normal" citizen. And evading prosecution for murder happens to be... a crime.

There is no general duty for anyone to turn in someone they know is a criminal. Actively assisting someone to conceal a crime can get you in big trouble, but passively not coming forward with what you know will not.

Question for Kyle: Is this "law" you are quoting, or are these just some extralegal "ethical guidelines" dreamed up by the ABA?

The rule I quoted is a model rule formulated by the ABA. However, most jurisdictions have adopted the Model Rules virtually verbatim as the governing rules of the legal profession. Violating the rules can cause a lawyer to be reprimanded (slap on the wrist), suspended from practice for a while, or disbarred.

 

[jbhtexas]

Would that still be your contention if you knew that adherence to that rule actually resulted in fewer innocent people going to jail?

We shouldn't be settling for innocent people going to jail...at all.

 

[Phaedrus]

There is no general duty for anyone to turn in someone they know is a criminal. Actively assisting someone to conceal a crime can get you in big trouble, but passively not coming forward with what you know will not.


The rule I quoted is a model rule formulated by the ABA. However, most jurisdictions have adopted the Model Rules virtually verbatim as the governing rules of the legal profession. Violating the rules can cause a lawyer to be reprimanded (slap on the wrist), suspended from practice for a while, or disbarred.

Thanks for the info!

So, the lawyers involved really weren't in danger of violating the law, they were just responding to the threat of administrative procedures they deemed "superior" to the law.

That's nice to know.

 

[Kyle]

I'm pretty sure the guy that that was in prison for 26 years can argue that the current rule sucks... you know since he lost the best years of his life, his reputation, and probably any other conceivable thing worth living for.

It is quite possible that the rule saved his life.

Regardless, there needs to be a way that lawyers can anonymously contact someone to protect the freedom of an innocent person.

I'm not sure how such a system would work. There was apparently enough evidence the first time around to convict this guy (having the murder weapon in your possession is pretty damning).

From the view of the prosecutor - What would you do if you believed someone was guilty of murder, you had enough evidence to prove it, but there was a report from an anonymous source that you were barking up the wrong tree?

From the view of the victim's family - What would your reaction be if the prosecution of the man you believed murdered your family member, and who there is enough evidence to convict, was dropped due to some anonymous tip that couldn't really be followed up on?

I haven't been able to think of any kind of anonymous tip system that would be effective in any way but not be open to substantial abuse.

 

[Kyle]

Would that still be your contention if you knew that adherence to that rule actually resulted in fewer innocent people going to jail?

We shouldn't be settling for innocent people going to jail...at all.

If you can figure out a way to prevent that it would be great. In the meantime though, does it not make sense to adopt rules and procedures that reduce the error rate, even if those rules might have some adverse consequences in a few individual cases?

 

[keepngoal]

again... the weight of this problem laid on the real murderers shoulders (by not owning up, and I am sure he will have an interesting talk to God about this), then his lawyers shoulders.

IMO, they needed to 'man' up and find a way to prove who did it without giving up their confidentiality.

If only one of the three would have stepped up and tried.... we wouldn't be in this position.

-keep.