Attorney-Client privelage unjustly jails man for 26 years

[mikester]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I piss on this entire mentality. May all the attorneys and the DA involved all rot in hell for an eternity.

It's a real shame there probably isn't one.

Not to mention the confession would not have been admissible in court anyway so the Attorney breaking the confidence would have gone to jail, lost his job and done no good for anyone.

Now, waiting until the other client was dead and thus no longer protected he was at least able to get the innocent guy out.

[mikester]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Yes, how about shoot all the laywers, rip up the rulebooks and tear down all the institutions cause our system is so effing broken it can never be repaired.

It is, in fact, an utter perversion of any semblance of justice whatsoever.

How's this one..."Att'y-Client privelige shall be sacrificed in cases where a KNOWN (by the attorney) INNOCENT PERSON is convicted of the(or a related) crime."

Seems pretty reasonable to me. It saddens me that you need some Repo guy from philly to come up with such basic notions for you.

Attorney/Client privilege is a corner stone of the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise in our justice system. It also servers to allow a client to not incriminate themselves but speak regarding their defense to their attorney freely. If we take that freedom away where do we stop?

It is far more than just unfortunate that this guy ended up in jail for a crime he did not commit but it is not the attorney's fault. It is the guy who committed the crime's fault.

[m21sniper]

Why don't you spend 26 years in prison while innocent, and tell me what 'unfortunate' is.

We don't have a justice system. It is an injustice system.

"Att'y-Client privelige shall be sacrificed in cases where a KNOWN (by the attorney) INNOCENT PERSON is convicted of the(or a related) crime."

There is nothing wrong with this standard, and it has the added benefit of not letting KNOWN innocents go to jail.

[competentone]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Why don't you spend 26 years in prison while innocent, and tell me what 'unfortunate' is.

We don't have a justice system. It is an injustice system.

"Att'y-Client privelige shall be sacrificed in cases where a KNOWN (by the attorney) INNOCENT PERSON is convicted of the(or a related) crime."

There is nothing wrong with this standard, and it has the added benefit of not letting KNOWN innocents go to jail.

I'm wondering if your "rage" is misplaced.

I don't know this specific case (I'd appreciate if someone has a link to the incident being discussed) but one really has to question how an innocent person was convicted when another person committed the crime?

Who were the police who investigated this crime? Who was the prosecutor? Who was the innocent man's defense lawyer? The burden of proof for conviction requires that the prosecutor prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt -- that is a pretty tough standard.

One would expect that an innocent person would not have difficulty demonstrating "reasonable doubt" about the charges brought against him if he was completely innocent of the crime. (I know if false charges were brought against me, I'd have no problems showing "reasonable doubt" about those charges.)

I have to wonder if the prosecutor or police somehow fabricated evidence against the innocent person in this case, or if the innocent person had an extremely poor defense lawyer?

Again, I don't know the details surrounding this specific case, but I wonder if the innocent man, isn't really "so innocent" -- maybe it is a case where a convenience store clerk was killed during a robbery, the "innocent" person charged and convicted didn't do the specific robbery/murder, but maybe he was guilty of a string of robberies with a similar MO.

Again, if anyone has a link with a good explanation of the details for this case, I'd be interested in learning more about this.

[artplumber]

Well could have been worse for the convicted....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap_on_re_as/sri_lanka_forgotten_prisoner;_ylt=Aj8BJ9l0FKm.q0vc mVWcMS2s0NUE

Bureaucracy's victim: 50 years for a crime that never was

...James never stood trial, never even had a bail hearing, yet he spent 50 years of his life a prisoner.....

[widgeon13]

Pretty good article explaining this case in Sunday NYTimes;

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/weekinreview/04liptak.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin

[m21sniper]

The current standard is a symbol of the absolute injustice that is carried on every day in our names.

The US criminal justice system is a perversion of everything American. It sickens me.

From the article:

Massachusetts seems to be alone in allowing lawyers to reveal secrets “to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another.”

That is exactly what i stated in this thread earlier, and that should ABSOLUTELY be the national standard.

PS: I have never even been arrested, so i'm not arguing this because i've got a grudge. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. In this instance Massachussetts is right, and every other state and the fed. gov't are wrong. Dead wrong.

[competentone]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

Pretty good article explaining this case in Sunday NYTimes;

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/weekinreview/04liptak.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin

Thanks, that gives a little more information, but still no details about exactly how the "innocent" man was found guilty of the crime. It sounds like the now dead man (the attorney's client) and the "innocent" man were both convicted of the murder, but the now dead man disclosed to the attorney that the "innocent" man was really innocent. The article is still not clear as to what the relationship between the two, who were both convicted in the murders, was. It doesn't explain what the relationship was to the victims, or discuss what the evidence was that convicted the "innocent" man.

This is what that NY Times article says:

Mr. Cashwell, Mr. Hughes’s client, committed suicide in 2002, more than a decade after he pleaded guilty to the 1984 killings of Roland and Lisa Matthews. Prosecutors had maintained that Mr. Hunt also participated in the killings, and Mr. Cashwell did nothing to refute them. But Mr. Hughes said that Mr. Cashwell confessed in private that he single-handedly killed the couple after an argument over whether a television was playing too loud. “Lee Wayne Hunt had nothing to do with it,” Mr. Hughes said.

[Jeff Higgins]

I cannot believe anyone would defend a man who knowingly allowed an innocent man to sit in prison for 26 years. I don't care what the laws are surrounding attorney/client privilege. This attorney got out of bed every morning for 26 years knowing he had knowledge that could free an innocent man. 26 years. He presumably raised a family in that time; maybe even had grand kids. Lived his life. And all the while let a man he knew to be innocent lose 26 years of his. This attorney is the lowest scum imaginable. He deserves to lose everything he accomplished, everyone he knew and loved, every moment of happiness he ever had. For 26 ******* years. He simply cannot do enough to restore what he took from this man. 26 ******* years... May he rot in hell for an eternity...

[WolfeMacleod]

America. Best justice system money can buy.

[dentist90]

I'm surprised the silent attorney really knew that his client was the guilty party. The LAST thing an attorney wants to know is if his client 'did it'... it hinders a vigorous defense!

[competentone]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I cannot believe anyone would defend a man who knowingly allowed an innocent man to sit in prison for 26 years. I don't care what the laws are surrounding attorney/client privilege. This attorney got out of bed every morning for 26 years knowing he had knowledge that could free an innocent man. 26 years. He presumably raised a family in that time; maybe even had grand kids. Lived his life. And all the while let a man he knew to be innocent lose 26 years of his. This attorney is the lowest scum imaginable. He deserves to lose everything he accomplished, everyone he knew and loved, every moment of happiness he ever had. For 26 ******* years. He simply cannot do enough to restore what he took from this man. 26 ******* years... May he rot in hell for an eternity...

Before you get so riled up about it, don't you think you need to learn a little more about the case?

So far, all I know of the details is what is told in the NY Times article (in the link from widgeon):

Mr. Cashwell, Mr. Hughes’s client, committed suicide in 2002, more than a decade after he pleaded guilty to the 1984 killings of Roland and Lisa Matthews. Prosecutors had maintained that Mr. Hunt also participated in the killings, and Mr. Cashwell did nothing to refute them. But Mr. Hughes said that Mr. Cashwell confessed in private that he single-handedly killed the couple after an argument over whether a television was playing too loud. “Lee Wayne Hunt had nothing to do with it,” Mr. Hughes said.

If the "innocent" man (Hunt) had nothing to do with the murder that both he and Cashwell (the attorney's client) were serving time for, then exactly what sort of evidence did the prosecutors present to the judge or jury to convince them "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Hunt was involved?

What relationship did Hunt have with Cashwell, and what relationship did both of them have to the murder victims?

I need a whole lot more information about this case before I conclude that this Hunt guy is in fact innocent; and if he is, my rage is more likely to be directed toward the actual murderer, the police, prosecutors, his (Hunt's) defense lawyer, and perhaps the jury that convicted him, and not at an attorney who was told something by a man he was representing who plead guilty to a double homicide!

I won't let the media "jerk my emotions around" without giving me the cold hard facts. There are too many "bleeding heart liberals" in the media who will jump on a story about an "innocent" man in prison and ignore a lot of critical facts which may show the man really is not innocent.

A jury, or judge, listened to the facts in this case and concluded that Hunt was guilty. What evidence do you have that the judge or jury made the wrong decision, other than hearsay from an attorney who was representing a person who plead guilty to the same crime?

[svandamme]

if i were a lawyer, in this kind of situation
that man would not have spent 26 years in jail, and i would gladly find another job
even if it means flipping burgers

[m21sniper]

You and i drink from the same cup with regard to this issue Svandamme

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by competentone

Before you get so riled up about it, don't you think you need to learn a little more about the case?

What on earth makes you think I didn't bother to read the articles about the case? Because I disagree with your postition? I stand by what I said.

As a matter of fact, I'll extend what I said to any judge who has ever been complicit in such a case. To any other attorney who has ever stood his "professional ethics" ground over the life of an innocent man. These people are simply the lowest scum to be found slithering their way through our society. They feel they sit above us all, all but dressed in their powdered wigs and robes, where they can debate the finer points of attorney/client privilege while an innocent man rots in jail. Un ******* believable. The day their little bull***** "privilege" cost an innocent man his life behind bars is the day it had lost all moral justification. There is simply no excuse. None.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by MRM

Piss away. Care to draft a better rule? .

The American criminal justice system is one of the most deeply flawed in the world. This is a constant topic of discussion at International Bar Association conferences.

Most other jurisdictions have procedures that would have been available to deal with this confidentiality issue.

The perverse thing in the US is that an attorney owes his principal duty of care to his client. In other jurisdictions an attorney owes a duty of care not just to his client, but also to the court and the justice system, and if an attorney becomes aware of a profound miscarriage of justice he is required to take steps to rectify such miscarriage by bringing it to the attention of the appropriate judicial authorities.

[widgeon13]

I would still rather live here and deal with all our imperfections than anywhere else on this planet. At least it is OURS and we are challenged to change it if we believe it is unfair.

The system is not infallible, none of them are.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

I would still rather live here and deal with all our imperfections than anywhere else on this planet. At least it is OURS and we are challenged to change it if we believe it is unfair.

The system is not infallible, none of them are.

No, none are infallible - but there are better judicial systems around.

The system is slow and cumbersome and extremely expensive in the US. "Justice" - or something like it - is frequently not achieved. The relentless focus on the adversarial nature of the system promotes theatre and artifice at the expense of truth and justice. (The O.J.case is just one example.) And lawyers have every financial incentive to spin cases out instead of expediting them. These priorities are completely wrong.

No one wants to sue or be sued in the US because of the expensive and essentially capricious nature of the judicial system. How many times have you heard, "the guy owed me money but I decided just to write it off because it would have been too expensive to sue" - or something like this? This is a sign of a flawed system of justice.

I think the attitude "because it's ours, it must be the best" is myopic, and it is precisely this attitude that perpetuates the flaws in the systems and mitigates against constructive change.

[Rick Lee]

I have to reluctantly agree with Dottore, however, one's measure of "better judicial systems" depends on whether you're a defendant or a victim. If you murder someone in the U.S., get caught and convicted, the very worst that can happen to you is you live pretty comfortably on death row for 15 yrs. before getting euthanized like a sick cat. The same crime in Germany might get you 15 yrs. in prison, certainly not life, and the prison won't be that uncomfortable. The same crime in Iran will get you hanged and quickly, though it's a slow death when they hoist you up by your neck with a crane. The same crime in China will get you a bullet in the back of the head and pretty quickly after sentencing too. Those last two countries might appear to have a much better "justice" system if you're a victim's loved one. The first two might seem outrageously lenient. And the opposite is true if you're the convicted man.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I have to reluctantly agree with Dottore, however, one's measure of "better judicial systems" depends on whether you're a defendant or a victim.

Penal systems are a different subject of course - and here the US unfortunately also leads the world in the percentage of the population that's incarcerated; recidivism rates and the complete lack of meaningful rehabilitation etc etc.

I was focusing my earlier comments just on the judicial system however. It's a monster of a system in the US - that benefits those that are employed in and around it; but that is grossly inefficient from the perspective of a user or consumer. Really grossly inefficient.