Attorney-Client privelage unjustly jails man for 26 years

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by competentone

But my questions still remain. How are you so certain that Hunt is innocent?

Nah, the lawyer only exposed himself to potential disbarment for the hell of it.

[competentone]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Nah, the lawyer only exposed himself to potential disbarment for the hell of it.

And that fact implies that the lawyer is probably telling the truth about what his client (Cashwell) told him.

But if every "confession" about guilt was believed, a lot of innocent people would be in jail. Innocent people confess to committing crimes -- with no provocation from the police -- all the time. Some do it -- particularly prisoners -- with some twisted plan of "gain" in their minds; some do it because they are mentally unstable. Cashwell had murdered two people over an argument about a TV being too loud, and committed suicide in 2002 -- he is not a picture of mental stability.

So why do you believe Cashwell told the truth to his lawyer? Or even knew the truth himself? Maybe both Cashwell and Hunt were in a drugged up state when they both committed the murders, when sober, Cashwell felt a moment of guilt and told his lawyer he did it alone?

Again, the only details I have on this case is from the NY Times article posted earlier:

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.

I can try searching for more details later, but if anyone has an article with a better description -- particularly one which describes the evidence used to convict Hunt -- please post it.

So many posting here seem "hung up" on this attorney issue and are completely ignoring whatever evidence was used to convict Hunt -- it sounds like even after the attorney testified the court has still decided the evidence was strong enough in Hunt's conviction to keep him in jail. I want to know exactly what that evidence is? Does anyone here know what the evidence is that convinced a judge or jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hunt was guilty?

[competentone]

If anyone is interested in more facts about this case, here are more details:

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=284003

Published on Saturday, January 26, 2008

Supreme Court refuses to consider Hunt appeal

By Paul Woolverton
Staff writer

The state Supreme Court rejected an effort by drug dealer Lee Wayne Hunt to overturn his conviction for the 1984 murders of a young married couple near Fayetteville.

His lawyers say they have new evidence to show Hunt is innocent. But in January 2007, Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Jack Thompson refused to reopen the case. The state Court of Appeals did the same in August.

In an order made public Friday, the Supreme Court said it will not hear his case. It gave no explanation.

“We’re disappointed, and we don’t think justice has been served, is all I can say,” said Kenneth Broun, one of Hunt’s lawyers. The lawyers next will take the case to federal court, he said.

Hunt, 48, was convicted of murder in 1986 and sentenced to two consecutive life terms plus 20 years for the deaths of Roland “Tadpole” Matthews and his wife, Lisa. They were shot and stabbed to death. State prosecutors said Hunt killed them because Tadpole Matthews stole marijuana from him.

Hunt has always maintained his innocence.

Two other men were also convicted in the killings. A fourth man was granted immunity in unrelated drug cases in exchange for his testimony against the others.

Hunt has two new pieces of evidence to clear his name, his lawyers have said:

* Staples Hughes, who represented co-defendant Jerry Dale Cashwell, came forward in late 2004 to say Hunt is innocent. Hughes said that Cashwell admitted in secret to him in 1985 that he alone killed the couple. Hughes revealed the secret after Cashwell killed himself in prison. In telling Cashwell’s secret, Hughes put his law license in jeopardy.
* Hunt was convicted, in part, on a scientific evidence that said the bullets that killed the Matthews couple chemically matched bullets from a box of ammunition linked to Hunt and Cashwell. This suggested that the bullets were manufactured at about the same time and could have come from the same box. In 2005, the Federal Bureau of Investigation decided that this kind of evidence is prone to generate false matches and should never be used again to try to convict someone.

In November, following reports on CBS’ newsmagazine 60 Minutes and in The Washington Post, the FBI announced that it would redouble efforts to contact people who were convicted based on the faulty bullet testing method. The TV show and newspaper prominently featured Hunt as one of hundreds of possibly innocent people convicted by this kind of evidence.

The third defendant in the Matthews murder case, Kenneth Wayne West, pleaded guilty to lesser charges in 1987 and was sentenced to serve three years.

The fourth man involved, Gene Williford Jr., was given immunity to testify against the others. He died in 2006.

When Thompson refused to reopen the case early last year, he said Hughes’ statements about what Cashwell said would be inadmissible hearsay. Also, he said, the bullet-testing issue isn’t enough to overturn the case because there was plenty of other strong evidence that Hunt is guilty.

The Supreme Court’s rejection surprised Broun. “We thought that we had a valid claim of innocence that we were confident that the Supreme Court would not let go by,” he said.

The Innocence Network is working on Hunt's case; they are working a lot of cases relating to the FBI's "bullet lead analysis". Here is their description of the case (from before the Supreme Court's rejection):
http://innocencenetwork.org/oldsite/111907_task_force.html

More details:

http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/blog/2007/11/confidentiality.html

Hunt had been a notorious drug dealer in Fayetteville but maintained from the start that he had not murdered the Matthewses. In March 1984, the couple were found shot and stabbed to death in their home on a rural road in Cumberland County. About one year later, Hunt, Cashwell and Kenneth Wayne West were arrested and charged with the murders.

Hughes interviewed Cashwell at the Cumberland jail in the weeks after the arrest. That’s when Cashwell confessed that he was the sole killer. Hughes, a young public defender assigned to the case, was stunned, but he couldn’t tell anyone. “All of a sudden, time just stands still in a way,” Hughes said. “I don’t know whether ethical behavior is always the same as being a moral hero. Maybe if I were some moral hero, I would have told. But it was very clear-cut to me that the only ethical course was that it was not in my client’s interest to reveal it, and of course I did not.”

Cashwell was tried first, convicted of the double murder and sentenced to two life terms. Hunt was tried later and convicted in October 1986. He also received two life sentences. The only physical evidence connecting Hunt to the crime was a bullet lead analysis conducted by the FBI. It appeared to show that crime-scene bullets matched those in a box that Hunt owned. Scientists now say the bullet lead analysis that the prosecutor relied on is misleading and should not be used as evidence. The remaining evidence against him was from Hunt’s co-defendants: drug dealers who had agreed to testify against Hunt in exchange for immunity or reduced prison time for their roles in the crime. “It was awful, because I know what’s going on in the courtroom down the hall from my office is a bunch of fabrications,” Hughes said, recalling his reaction to Hunt’s trial years ago.

[m21sniper]

There are only 3 important facts in this case.

1) The actual guilty party exonerated the wrongly imprisoned man, an act which did not benefit him in any way.
2) The murderer's laywer kept it secret for 26 years.
3) The murderer's lawyer was so sure his client's admission was true that he risked his entire career to set the man free.

The wrongly imprisoned victim's background is irrelevant. Which is why no one has bothered entertaining your diversionary arguments.

Kay?

[competentone]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

There are only 3 important facts in this case.

1) The actual guilty party exonerated the wrongly imprisoned man
2) The laywer kept it secret for 26 years
3) The lawyer was so sure it was true that he risked his entire career to set the man free.

The wrongly imprisoned victim's background is irrelevant.

Wouldn't it be nice if everything in life could be reduced down to a few simple "facts."

(Then, even the idiots in this world could be "experts" on everything.)

[m21sniper]

Shrug.

[MRM]

The lawyers didn't risk anything to disclose the facts when they did. They had the dead guy's permission to disclose his affidavit after his death. So, for what it's worth, you can't use the possibility of personal sacrifice to evaluate the credibilityof the lawyer's revelation, because there was none.

[Rot 911]

"Hunt, 48, was convicted of murder in 1986 and sentenced to two consecutive life terms plus 20 years for the deaths of Roland “Tadpole” Matthews and his wife, Lisa. They were shot and stabbed to death. State prosecutors said Hunt killed them because Tadpole Matthews stole marijuana from him.Two other men were also convicted in the killings. A fourth man was granted immunity in unrelated drug cases in exchange for his testimony against the others.
The third defendant in the Matthews murder case, Kenneth Wayne West, pleaded guilty to lesser charges in 1987 and was sentenced to serve three years.

The fourth man involved, Gene Williford Jr., was given immunity to testify against the others. He died in 2006."

One important fact I am not sure about from this case is whether or not all four men were in the house when the murder was committed. If so, they are all guilty under the felony murder rule and all could have been sentenced to life in prison. Doesn't matter who pulled the trigger or used the knife.