What is Digg?Sponsored by Newegg.com
$5,000 Newegg Eggstreme Challenge Video Contest Extended to 11/15 view!
newegg.com - Show them what YOU would do with the money you save by shopping at Newegg. Seriously, show them...
233 Comments
- lsfloyd, on 04/13/2008, -9/+144Innocent people behind bars...I wonder how many there are in the U.S.
- xdeliriumx, on 04/13/2008, -8/+104I heard about this on the radio, and we talked about it in my Ethics class. It is very sad indeed.
In that position, I would definitely have to disclose the information. My conscience would get the better of me and I think I would go insane knowing that not only is the real criminal at large but also that a man is rotting in a cell for something he did not do. - sustainablogger, on 04/13/2008, -3/+86I understand the need for attorney-client privilege -- it's critical -- but here's a case where it undermined justice rather than serving it.
- vault, on 04/13/2008, -1/+71Wow...I hope he gets some compensation for the 26 years spent he's spent in jail as an innocent man.
- PueSi, on 04/13/2008, -0/+62The sad thing is that no matter how much money they give him, he already lost almost half of his life.
- inactive, on 04/13/2008, -4/+46"Lawyer-client privilege is not complete; most states allow attorneys to reveal confidences to prevent a death, serious bodily harm or criminal fraud. But this case didn't offer that kind of exception."
What the hell? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like an exception should also be made for cases like this when it can exonerate an innocent man. Is there anyone out there with real law experience that can explain why this is NOT already the case? - PueSi, on 04/13/2008, -6/+48I agree with you, i couldn't live knowing i ruined the life of someone else and their family.
It seems like you need to be soulless to be a lawyer. - alittleroy101, on 04/13/2008, -2/+33The real criminal was actually serving life in prison. He was not 'at large'.
- akuhl101, on 04/13/2008, -12/+39This is *****! 26 years for nothing - those lawyers should have talked I don't give a damn.
- inactive, on 04/13/2008, -2/+29Fine. That doesn't change the fact that an innocent man spent 26 years in jail.
- xero040486, on 04/13/2008, -5/+31We don't have a justice system. We have a 'legal' system.
- pigfister, on 04/13/2008, -8/+32Does that include Guantanamo bay and the hundreds of US black "prison" sites (torture death camps) around the globe?
- novaculus, on 04/13/2008, -4/+25I understand your frustration but you are blaming the wrong parties. In fact, the lawyers would certainly have been disbarred had they disclosed privileged communication from a client. I can only imagine the weight of the burden they had to carry, as I can only imagine the suffering of the innocent Mr. Logan. But they are all victims of the same man who committed the murder, told his lawyers he had done it, and then refused to take responsibility for what he had done. He is the responsible party.
And the rules need to be amended to permit the disclosure of privileged information to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. - TristanTime, on 04/13/2008, -3/+23***** like this just gets me so ***** mad
- inactive, on 04/13/2008, -1/+18The difficulty here (talked about this with a couple of "friends" last night) is that the lawyers for the guilty man would have a VERY difficult time coming up with a way to get the info into court. It would have been inadmissible (might be the wrong term). As much as they might have WANTED to make the information public, the court would be obligated to throw out the evidence. So, the lawyers would be disbarred, AND the evidence would not matter.
The two guys I talked to spent a lot of time discussing how they could get around current law. Patent law , and real estate lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt. Kinda creepy watching lawyers figure out how they could successfully be shady, but "for a good reason this time!"... - sword1781, on 04/13/2008, -2/+19This is why I don't believe in the death penalty. What if they had executed this guy 20 years ago.
- QurrUm, on 04/13/2008, -20/+36See? Yet another reason to never trust lawyers.
- kro762, on 04/13/2008, -5/+20i don't want to play semantics but,..... lawyers by and large are professional lairs.
they get paid to coerce, per sway, confuse, find legal loopholes............
Ladies and Gentelmen of the supposed jury, this - is - chewbacca.......... - FullMetalNIN, on 04/13/2008, -1/+16I think you over estimate how much public defenders actually make.
- aiken, on 04/13/2008, -2/+16Really? These two maintained attorney client privilege and upheld professional ethics even knowing that it was keeping an innocent man in jail. The situation sucks, and you can debate whether they did the right thing or not, but if you see this as evidence that lawyers (at least these two) aren't trustworthy, you don't understand what happened.
- emotecontrol, on 04/13/2008, -3/+17Remember this story next time you hear someone talk about getting "tough on crime." That usually means that they want to reduce the criteria for long-term sentences and increase the number of life- or death-sentences. More to the point, it also means that they want to increase the number of convictions. If the number of crimes stays constant (or as is the trend, decreases), where do you think they'll get more convictions from? You, your children, or your friend might be the next Alton Logan.
Up here in Canada, lawyers will specifically tell their clients that they don't want to know whether or not they perpetrated the crime, because if they are aware that the client believes he is guilty, they cannot make statements claiming innocence to the court. That would perjure them, and it severely hampers their ability to defend the client. A better rule than "lawyer-client privilege" would be to require lawyers to excuse themselves from a case if the client confesses directly to them, and protect that information from subpoena. - inactive, on 04/13/2008, -2/+15Probably quite a few, doesn't the U.S. have the largest prison population? per capita?
- pintomp3, on 04/13/2008, -3/+15so we are no better than anyone else? btw, we have a higher incarceration rate than any other country.
- CollateralDmg, on 04/13/2008, -2/+14The problem is that if these lawyers would have come forward under any other circumstances, any evidence they presented would have been worthless in court of law. So instead of this guy getting off now, he'd be in jail forever.
- pentupentropy, on 04/13/2008, -16/+27I'd say the lawyers in this case went above and beyond. Not trusting them? A lawyer who takes his job seriously enough to protect you as is his job while an innocent man rots is trustworthy. This ethical issue is a case which helps to prove what I always tell my friends. Law is not based as much on right and wrong as it is in fairness. Anyone who has children knows the difference, and probably a lot of people who don't, but the right thing to do here is to get the innocent man free, but only from a moral standpoint. From a legal standpoint, the lawyer did the right thing.
- ItsMyWii, on 04/13/2008, -2/+12His name was Alton Logan...
- jazzyjeff84, on 04/13/2008, -2/+12Be positive, if he gets out now and lives to 100 he's only lost a quarter!
- rhustang, on 04/13/2008, -16/+26From a legal standpoint the lawyers did the right thing? Are you kidding me? They let an innocent man rot in prison for 26 years for a crime he DIDN'T commit. They stole this man's life, possibly ruined his family's lives. That is NOT the right moral, legal, ethical, or any other kind of thing. They should be disbarred, in my opinion, for letting something like that happen. Actually, I would go one step further and say they should be brought up on charges.
- sonofblacula, on 04/13/2008, -0/+10No, the REAL irony is that had the innocent man gotten the death penalty they could have come forward, as the law allows for the violation of attorney-client privilege in order to prevent loss of life. He would've been out 20 years ago if he had gotten the death penalty.
- inactive, on 04/13/2008, -0/+9The 'funny' part was on 60 minutes he was still in jail despite the confession. Paper work, etc. is important.
- hauntedchippy, on 04/13/2008, -4/+13Sadly that would probably make you a terrible lawyer
- ReJeKt, on 04/13/2008, -7/+16If they had come forward earlier, it would have put their own client in jeopardy. When I get a lawyer, I hope for damn sure they don't take things I say to them in confidence and tell the cops about it, whether I broke the law or not. That's the only way it can be.
- sonoran, on 04/13/2008, -0/+9I think it's the legal system that's soulless; the humans that make it up vary in that capacity
- shannondoko, on 04/13/2008, -2/+11Not only that, but it wouldn't have held up on court. So it would have been pointless to come out and say that.
- kingmanic, on 04/13/2008, -0/+8Kro762: I work in an office which employs a few lawyers and interacts with many many more. I find your blanket statement appalling stupid. Although it's been in vogue to hate lawyers for a very long time, what they actually do is they understand the language of law and they do research. Without lawyers many things get sticky. Many aren't in it for the money. The editor of our magazine is a respected trial lawyer but instead of going on to be a judge or becoming a partner at a firm, she has devoted 30 years to help people get to know about the law and their rights at a non profit magazine. The resident copy checking lawyer is a wonderful lady whose day is not filled with lying but a lot of reading of laws, proposed legislation, precedents, and trial reports. The majority of lawyers are employed to "protect" their client in various contractual disputes or creation of contracts.
- ShempRider, on 04/13/2008, -2/+10When I saw "Chicago" as the dateline, I was like, yup, the fix is in. That whole goddamned city's on the take. The skyline's beautiful but winters suck.
Glad I left. - inactive, on 04/13/2008, -0/+8Bash the lawyers over their adherence to the attorney-client privilege all you want but everyone here should be pissed at the prosecutor and the police officers involved. It was their shoddy work that convinced a jury to convict an innocent man. These lawyers could have let him rot in jail but at least they secured him a possible way out once the client they were bound to protect died.
- waspinator, on 04/13/2008, -4/+11The justice system is broken. Not only are innocent people in jail, but the guilty aren't getting any help from it either. When they come out they're the same or worse.
- mikeyj10, on 04/13/2008, -2/+9The point of atty-client privilege is to protect the client not serve the interest of justice. It's funny everyone criticizes defendant's attorney for being unscrupulous, but I've seen Assistant District Attorney's do things that I would be disbarred for in a heartbeat. That's why you see all these innocent people in prison getting released from prison b/c of DNA all the time.
- vertinox, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7This is why we can't have the death penalty in the US. Sure some people deserve it, but too many innocent people get convicted that turn out innocent because of getting railroaded by lazy public defenders or over zealous prosecutors and corrupt judges looking for re-election.
It sure sucks to be innocent and be in jail for 30 years years, but if you already got the chair all the justice system can do is send your family a "Whoops! We made a mistake!" letter. - focom, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7Ironically, the whole reason he was in there for 26 years is that the real criminal got his death sentence changed to life imprisonment. The lawyers could only use the evidence after their client died, so had he gotten the death penalty back then the innocent man would have gotten a retrial/acquittal that much earlier.
- aceakm, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7Real life Shawshank Redemption.
- phazon88, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6Yes. It's about 1 in 99 American adults that are in prison.
- smotpoker, on 04/13/2008, -1/+7Incentive to remember "beyond a reasonable doubt" next time you're on a jury
- xkhaozx, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6Oh really, even when its you facing 25+ years in Jail when your innocent? How about this: Don't commit a crime ?
- medj, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CEhpuyigb0
- novaculus, on 04/13/2008, -2/+8It just isn't something that is so easily foreseen that it would be made an exception. Think about it. Our whole system is based on the premise that it is better the guilty go free than the innocent are convicted and punished. That is why proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. An aquital does not equate to innocence; it just means guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why OJ could be found not guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt) in a criminal trial and found liable in a civil trial (more likely than not to be responsible, i.e. 51% or greater probability). So foreseeing that an innocent person would not only be charged but actually wrongfully convicted, in a circumstance where attorneys for a co-defendant actually had exculpatory but privileged evidence would be nearly impossible.
I have no doubt the rules will be re-examined in light of this case, first in this state, and then in others. - d03boy, on 04/13/2008, -3/+9Innocent until proven guilty = no more.
People have a ***** up idea of proof these days - seanc6610, on 04/13/2008, -1/+6Isn't it the job of a lawyer, and anyone in the "justice" system to protect the truth? A lawyer's first loyalty should be to the truth, not to his next paycheck. Somehow I think this is not what the founding fathers had in mind.
- inactive, on 04/13/2008, -1/+6Do you think all lawyers are filthy rich? Get a ***** clue, most don't get paid much at all.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 233 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is