Monday, 03.10.08
Psst, Judge: I've Got a Secret
Photo by flickr user fensterbme under a Creative Commons license
It's tempting to say that the public defenders should have come forward, accepted disbarment, and spared Alton Logan twenty-six years of wrongful imprisonment. Perhaps they could have sprung Logan without appreciably weakening clients' trust in their attorneys. Disbarment is a severe sanction, and after all, this case is an extreme one. Besides, what comes first -- lawyerly obligations, or human ones?
Better still, though, would be for the legal system to establish ways for lawyers to reveal certain secrets without damaging their clients' interests. One possibility is an "Innocence Panel" -- a closed courtroom of appeals court judges who could grant immunity from prosecution for confessions that (1) are demonstrably true; (2) could free an already convicted man from prison; and (3) reveal information that wouldn't have come to light otherwise.
Other approaches are bubbling up as law school students and legal bloggers debate this case. Meanwhile, Alton Logan remains in an Illinois prison, waiting to argue a motion for a new trial. A former Illinois governor once commuted 156 death sentences, fretting that one of the convicts might be innocent. Surely Governor Rod R. Blagojevich can grant a single speedy pardon for one irrevocably wronged man?
Under no obligationEugene Volokh argues that lawyers can't be expected to sacrifice themselves for innocent victims. |
Agent of the clientTom Veal explains why attorney-client privilege is crucial, even if it has sometimes tragic consequences. |
Advantage: prosecutorsRadley Balko opines against a weird double-standard for when attorney-client privilege can be broken. |
At every peril...Timothy Sandefur muses on the perilous spot California attorneys sometimes occupy. |
(1)
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
The ethical barrier regarding attorney client privilege in the unique situation regarding the Alton Logan case, wherein two attorneys representing Andrew Wilson concealed evidence Wilsons guilt and Logan's innocence by keeping silent for 26 years, was itself compromised by their silence, and should be reviewed. Perhaps one way around the conflict would have been for the attorneys to contact the DA or handling judge in the Alton Logan case and stating that they knew of a suspect that had confessed to the killing of the security guard that Logan was convicted of, and that they would further justice and perhaps assist in freeing an innocent man by revealing the name of the actual killer of the security guard. They could have stipulated that prior to identifying the suspect, that the death penalty was off the table and life without parole or less was the only possible sentence. They could also have mentioned that the real killer of the guard was already doing life in prison for another homicide and that with the stipulation regarding sentencing in force there would be no further jeopardy to the real murderer. If the DA and judge agreed to reopen the case against Logan with the new evidence under the stipulated sentencing (if applicable), they could then release the name of their client (Wilson) who would have remained in prison anyway, assuming no further sentencing or jeopardy for the security guard killing. Something should have been done rather than letting an innocent man rot in prison for 26 + years (and he is still there) in order to protect the rights of a convicted murderer already doing life in prison, with/without parole (unknown to me) in order to not violate the lawyer client privilege. Perhaps the code of ethics regarding the lawyer client privilege should be reviewed and rewritten, perhaps based on the Hippocratic oath used by physicians, wherein the first premise is "First do no harm!" and adding perhaps, "Justice First and Foremost!" and thus Alton Logan would not have been "harmed" by doing what amounts so far to a life sentence for a crime not committed, and known to be innocent by his two attorneys, who are officers of the court. Justice and Truth should be the overriding issue here, not protecting an already convicted murderer who's life would not have been altered anyway had the truth been allowed to come out.
Posted by Clark Drown | March 10, 2008 5:39 PM