Attorney-Client privelage unjustly jails man for 26 years

ckissick · 04-19-2008, 08:05 AM

I saw a story on TV last night about a man who was convicted of murder and got life. That was 26 years ago. Thing is, the real culprit's lawyer knew that his client was the real killer. But he couldn't say anything because of attorney - client confidentiality. The real killer died recently, so the lawyer was able to reveal the truth. The innocent man was finally released a couple days ago.

Isn't there something that can be done to avoid such injustice? The poor man rotted for 26 years because of a rule that I think needs revamping.

frogger · 04-19-2008, 08:09 AM

Is there a case for either a civil or criminal penalty for the lawyer? I don't know what can really be done in this terribly unjust situation.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Who ever said the legal system had anything to do with justice?

cgarr · cgarr's Garage

I didn't know Attorney-Client privelage was used to cover up a crime?

That explains why both Clinton's are attys, and surround themselves with them!

widgeon13 · 04-19-2008, 08:28 AM

Happens all the time. No one said the system is perfect.

sammyg2 · 04-19-2008, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckissick

Isn't there something that can be done to avoid such injustice? The poor man rotted for 26 years because of a rule that I think needs revamping.

Yes. Have the attorney who didn't say anything rot in jail for 26 years.
No, maybe that 52 years. Or 104 years. yea, that's starting to sound about right.
attorney-client privilege should never interfere with the truth. But that's an oxymoron.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

I'd like to read the details of the case. If we all hate and distrust lawyers so much, what makes you think anyone would believe this guy if he came out and said his client was the real guilty party? Obviously, nothing this lawyer knew firsthand would be admissible in court. Seems to me, the innocent guy had a pretty bad lawyer too if he was wrongly convicted and unsuccessful in his appeal(s).

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

For once in my life I am going to come down on the side of the lawyer. It is not this lawyer's fault that this guy sat in jail for 26 years. The lawyer was bound by the rules and ethics of his profession (I know ethics and lawyers don't usually go together but hang with me here...). He could not have disclosed the information or he would have been disbarred.

This is an extreme case that inflames everyone but the bottom line is that when you go to a lawyer you expect that lawyer to keep what you tell him confidential. The same rules apply across the board, whether it is your divorce hearing or a murder trial. In every policy there are extreme examples that, although rare, are possible and sometimes do occur.

If you want to throw someone under the bus, throw the real killer who kept his own mouth shut for 26 years while some other poor schlub did his time. I'm sure he is in a special kind of hell right now.

Being a doctor, we get alot of the same stuff with doctor/patient priviledge. We get an out though because if an issue is in the best interests of public health then we can disclose...so if a guy with raging TB comes into my office and tells me to not tell anyone, I still call the CDC on him and get him off the streets.

frogger · 04-19-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

If we all hate and distrust lawyers so much

Don't project. That wasn't said.

mikester · 04-19-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

For once in my life I am going to come down on the side of the lawyer. It is not this lawyer's fault that this guy sat in jail for 26 years. The lawyer was bound by the rules and ethics of his profession (I know ethics and lawyers don't usually go together but hang with me here...). He could not have disclosed the information or he would have been disbarred.

This is an extreme case that inflames everyone but the bottom line is that when you go to a lawyer you expect that lawyer to keep what you tell him confidential. The same rules apply across the board, whether it is your divorce hearing or a murder trial. In every policy there are extreme examples that, although rare, are possible and sometimes do occur.

If you want to throw someone under the bus, throw the real killer who kept his own mouth shut for 26 years while some other poor schlub did his time. I'm sure he is in a special kind of hell right now.

Being a doctor, we get alot of the same stuff with doctor/patient priviledge. We get an out though because if an issue is in the best interests of public health then we can disclose...so if a guy with raging TB comes into my office and tells me to not tell anyone, I still call the CDC on him and get him off the streets.

+1

speeder · speeder's Garage

If I'm not mistaken, there are exceptions to atty. client privilege that have to do with situations like this. Not sure, I'll ask my Dad and get back to you on it.

MRM · 04-19-2008, 10:52 AM

I haven't been following the case too closely, but my understanding is that the situation was that the two lawyers were public defenders many years ago. In the course of defending a client on one charge, he confessed to them that he was the one who had committed the murder the other guy was then on trial for, and ended up being convicted for. It is against the law for a lawyer to disclose what is said in client confidence. If the lawyers had broken their silence then they would have lost their jobs. licenses, and gone to jail. And not a single lawyer would have defended them because the attorney-client priviledge is so important that it is bigger than any one injustice. Just think of the distruct the cynics on this board would have for lawyers if, in addition to their other complaints, they knew that lawyers could blab private information confessed to them in confidence - private information that was necessary to defend the criminal, I mean client.

The best they could get their client to do was promise to release the lawyers from client confidentiality after the client died. Since he was in the process of being sentenced to death row, everyone thought that would be soon. But the death sentence got commuted to life, and the real bad guy didn't die until recently.

So what the lawyers did was moral, ethical, and legal. Was it right? I'd like to think that in the same situation I would have broken my vow of confidentiality and sacrificed myself to keep an innocent guy out of jail, but I can't say that was the right thing to do. Remember the Navy lawyer who passed on the names of all the Gitmo detainees to a civil rights organization? He went to jail as he should have. Where do you draw the line? He thought he was preventing an injustice too. The lawyer really can't make those value judgments. He has to be an instrument of the law and follow the law.

widgeon13 · 04-19-2008, 10:56 AM

Thanks for the explanation.

m21sniper · 04-19-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRM

I haven't been following the case too closely, but my understanding is that the situation was that the two lawyers were public defenders many years ago. In the course of defending a client on one charge, he confessed to them that he was the one who had committed the murder the other guy was then on trial for, and ended up being convicted for. It is against the law for a lawyer to disclose what is said in client confidence. If the lawyers had broken their silence then they would have lost their jobs. licenses, and gone to jail. And not a single lawyer would have defended them because the attorney-client priviledge is so important that it is bigger than any one injustice. Just think of the distruct the cynics on this board would have for lawyers if, in addition to their other complaints, they knew that lawyers could blab private information confessed to them in confidence - private information that was necessary to defend the criminal, I mean client.

The best they could get their client to do was promise to release the lawyers from client confidentiality after the client died. Since he was in the process of being sentenced to death row, everyone thought that would be soon. But the death sentence got commuted to life, and the real bad guy didn't die until recently.

So what the lawyers did was moral, ethical, and legal. Was it right? I'd like to think that in the same situation I would have broken my vow of confidentiality and sacrificed myself to keep an innocent guy out of jail, but I can't say that was the right thing to do. Remember the Navy lawyer who passed on the names of all the Gitmo detainees to a civil rights organization? He went to jail as he should have. Where do you draw the line? He thought he was preventing an injustice too. The lawyer really can't make those value judgments. He has to be an instrument of the law and follow the law.

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.

MRM · 04-19-2008, 11:23 AM

Piss away. Care to draft a better rule? How about "Lawyers can't break client confidence unless it's really important." How about "Anything I say to a lawyer is confidential but if you say it I get to find out about it if I think ideserve to." Or, maybe you prefer a simple rule saying that anything someone says to a lawyer can be disclosed, should be disclosed, or maybe must be disclosed? I have a better idea. Let's have a rule where people can get the best legal advice for their situation, and trust their lawyer that if they say anything to the lawyer, in order to give the lawyer the best information to make the right recommendation, that the lawyer won't betray their trust. Oh, wait, you piss on that entire mentality. Next time you get a speeding ticket and ask a lawyer friend for advice and say,"I really was going 10 over, but I think his radar was off, is there any chance of getting the radar test excluded" you can make sure to release your lawyer from client confidentiality so he can testify against you. You do think that allowing lawyers to testify against their clients is a good idea, don't you? That's what you're asking for.

m21sniper · 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRM

Care to draft a better rule?

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.

MRM · 04-19-2008, 11:27 AM

Go ahead and run with that platform. I'm sure the merits of your proposal will be reflected in the vast crowds joining your position.

m21sniper · 04-19-2008, 11:29 AM

It is entirely possible that one day that may very well come to pass.

Happens all over the world every day. Eventually it may happen here as well. But i don't need to 'run' with any platform, i am merely speaking the unfiltered truth.

The criminal "justice" system is an utter perversion, and those who LEGISLATE IT, practice it, and perpetuate it on the American people are most directly responsible.

Jim Richards · 04-19-2008, 12:19 PM

The rules for A-C privilege aren't perfect, it seems, but, I'm not sure what's really better. It just seems to me that the fella that unjustly (presumably) sat in prison needs the value of those lost years restored to him.

Dueller · 04-19-2008, 12:27 PM

There are some very narrow exceptions to AC privelege; i.e., a client informs you he is going to commit a serious crime that will result in death/bodily harm...you must first try to discourage the plan and if you think it is a real threat you may disclose on a limited basis to authorities.

Most common AC issue comes up when a client has divulged something and then while testifying they perjur themselves. In that instance you cannot divulge the prejury but you can and must move to withdraw as counsel without giving the specific reason.