Attorney-client privilege

[NoName]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3914719.shtml
via volokh

Alton Logan doesn't understand why two lawyers with proof he didn't commit murder were legally prevented from helping him. They had their reasons: To save Logan, they would have had to break the cardinal rule of attorney-client privilege to reveal their own client had committed the crime. But Logan had 26 years in prison to try to understand why he was convicted for a crime he didn't commit.

Logan, still in jail, speaks to 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon in his first interview for a report that also includes the lawyers which will be broadcast this Sunday, March 9, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"Yes. Sympathize with [the lawyers’ dilemma], yes. Understand it, no," Logan tells Simon. "If you know this is an innocent person, why would you allow this person to be prosecuted, convicted, sent to prison for all these years?" asks the 54-year-old inmate.

Lawyers Jamie Kunz and Dale Coventry were public defenders when their client, Andrew Wilson, admitted to them he had shot-gunned a security guard to death in a 1982 robbery. When a tip led to Logan's arrest and he went to trial for the crime, the two lawyers were in a bind. They wanted to help Logan but legally couldn't.

"The rules of conduct for attorneys, it's very, very clear…. We're in a position to where we have to maintain client confidentiality, just as a priest would or a doctor would. It's just a requirement of the law. The system wouldn’t work without it," says Coventry.

They watched Logan’s trial to see whether he got a life or death sentence. "We thought that somehow we would stop at least the execution," Coventry tells Simon. "Morally, there’s very little difference and we were torn about that, but in terms of the canons of ethics, there is a difference -- you can prevent a death."

One advantage of the death penalty is that it increases scrutiny of the conviction and helps uncover mistaken convictions. On the other hand...

[Listeria]

Did Volokh offer commentary?

[NoName]

Not much. Commenters had a lot to say
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1204850232.shtml

[Brad Gile]

The time honored attorney-client privilege concept is sound, but moral exceptions can occur which should cause attorneys to balk. In this case, I believe the two attorneys should have spoken up and taken a career hit rather than let this innocent man take a life sentence. They will bear the burden of their failure to act to their graves.

[Loner]

Plus if they spoke up, the evidence would not have been admissible to harm their client anyway, no?

[SamTheEagle]

Originally Posted by Loner

Plus if they spoke up, the evidence would not have been admissible to harm their client anyway, no?

One would think. But doesn't that open the door to people using their buddies to get out of jail?

"Hey lawyer, tell that judge that I did it, not him. It's not admissible anyway, then."

[Listeria]

I wonder what the issues involved would have been if these two lawyers simply "took an interest" in the Logan case, pro bono, and helped with appeals and the striking down of his conviction by showing the case had been flimsy etc.

[SamTheEagle]

Originally Posted by Listeria

I wonder what the issues involved would have been if these two lawyers simply "took an interest" in the Logan case, pro bono, and helped with appeals and the striking down of his conviction by showing the case had been flimsy etc.

Conflict of interest I would think. Helping this guy get off makes it more likely that the cops find out that their client actually did it. With this guy in jail, the cops no longer have a reason to look for the "real killer".

[Loner]

Originally Posted by SamTheEagle

One would think. But doesn't that open the door to people using their buddies to get out of jail?

"Hey lawyer, tell that judge that I did it, not him. It's not admissible anyway, then."

Not if there is some investigation. It takes more than someone else's word that he did it. There needs to be some evidence that the person was telling the truth.

[Listeria]

Originally Posted by SamTheEagle

Conflict of interest I would think. Helping this guy get off makes it more likely that the cops find out that their client actually did it. With this guy in jail, the cops no longer have a reason to look for the "real killer".

Seems like a smaller conflict than the one over whether or not to violate the confidence.