It's horrible, but they would have gotten disbarred otherwise. It's a no-win situation.

RodneyToady: It's a no-win situation.

How do you rationalize a no-win situation between sending a man to prison for 26 years and losing the ability to practice law.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: How do you rationalize a no-win situation between sending a man to prison for 26 years and losing the ability to practice law.

I agree. I thought that there were rules against holding back evidence of innocence. At the very least I would think that there should be an avenue which the lawyers could take whereby they could speak confidentially with a judge who could make the decision to exonerate the man without revealing the source.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: How do you rationalize a no-win situation between sending a man to prison for 26 years and losing the ability to practice law.

They lose the ability to practice law AND send their client up the creek. They violate a principle that is absolutely vital to the administration of an adversarial justice system, and particularly a criminal justice system in which the state bears the burden of proof.

madcharlie: At the very least I would think that there should be an avenue which the lawyers could take whereby they could speak confidentially with a judge who could make the decision to exonerate the man without revealing the source.

Backdrop: lawyers can reveal client confidences to judge in secret to exonerate criminal defendant, judge can't reveal source

Situation: guy commits murder

"Solution": guy has his friend "admit" to judge, through his lawyers, that the friend actually did it

Problem: you see where I'm going with this yet?

Hang the damn lawyers.

kronicfeld: Problem: you see where I'm going with this yet?

Yeah, that's not going to work so well. This is why I'm not a lawyer.

I would have gotten myself disbarred to free Logan, which is why I'm not a lawyer.

supichoo: I would have gotten myself disbarred to free Logan send your client to jail

Yeah, that's not going to work so well. This is why I'm not a lawyer.

Thanks for explaining that Kronicfeld. I still don't think it's right but as Spock often mused in Star Wars: New Hope For The Future that the needs of the many would supersede the needs of the few.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Spock often mused in Star Wars:

I missed that one...

kronicfeld: SockMonkeyHolocaust: How do you rationalize a no-win situation between sending a man to prison for 26 years and losing the ability to practice law.

They lose the ability to practice law AND send their client up the creek. They violate a principle that is absolutely vital to the administration of an adversarial justice system, and particularly a criminal justice system in which the state bears the burden of proof.
Exactly.
I'm sure if the lawyers had some way to do this ethically, they certainly would. They couldn't.
Really, a system where we have attorney-client priviledge except when it makes your lawyer unhappy would never work.

Oh and in another thread, I loved the poster who claimed the public-defenders had a profit motive in keeping his confidence.

kronicfeld: SockMonkeyHolocaust: How do you rationalize a no-win situation between sending a man to prison for 26 years and losing the ability to practice law.

They lose the ability to practice law AND send their client up the creek. They violate a principle that is absolutely vital to the administration of an adversarial justice system, and particularly a criminal justice system in which the state bears the burden of proof.

You're fundamentally correct, but cases like this prove how flawed our system can be. Incorrect verdicts are far too easy and common in this country.

How do you rationalize a no-win situation between sending a man to prison for 26 years and losing the ability to practice law.

It's not a choice -- they would not be allowed to testify to the jury about their client's confession without their client's permission.

shonblatt: You're fundamentally correct, but cases like this prove how flawed our system can be. Incorrect verdicts are far too easy and common in this country.

Every system has flaws. Feel free to outline, in detail, a competing system, so that we can compare its flaws to those in this one.

kronicfeld: Every system has flaws. Feel free to outline, in detail, a competing system, so that we can compare its flaws to those in this one.

Time to bring back trial by champion...


Pro: God judges who is right
Cons: God is a bastard

RodneyToady: It's horrible, but they would have gotten disbarred otherwise. It's a no-win situation.

If you are in a profession that says a guilty man's right to get away with murder is more important that letting an innocent man get convicted of a crime he did not commit - change jobs. Or change the rules.

I don't know what I would have done if I were in the same spot as those lawyers...but I do know that I wouldn't have been a lawyer anymore after facing a situation like that. One way or the other, I would have been out of the profession.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: www.thevelocityofme.com

Your honor, I always wanted to be a milk shake.

(If you don't know this line, you shouldn't be citing this movie)

Weaver95: Or change the rules.

Please feel free to suggest a rule change that does not create more problems than it "solves."

kronicfeld: Weaver95: Or change the rules.

Please feel free to suggest a rule change that does not create more problems than it "solves."

simple - you don't have any 'right' to lie. Nobody else has the 'right' to lie FOR you, or help you cover up a lie. Get caught in a lie, Bad Stuff happens.

Our current problem is that the Bad Guys (being Bad Guys) know how to manipulate our system to their advantage. And because they're Bad Guys, they're ok with being hypocritical bastards about it. Take that advantage away from them.

And before you go on about 'innocent 'till proven guilty' blah blah....shut it. we tossed that concept on the garbage heap during the War on Drugs. Same for the 4th amendment and most of the 1st amendment.

Weaver95: simple - you don't have any 'right' to lie.

Remind me who lied.

Weaver95: Our current problem is that the Bad Guys (being Bad Guys) know how to manipulate our system to their advantage.

He "manipulated" the system by hiring an attorney and by...uh...somehow compelling the state's attorney to prosecute someone else for the crime, while compelling a judge and jury to convict that individual?

Your tirade has nothing to do with (1) this story, nor (2) my post. Try again.

kronicfeld: I would have gotten myself disbarred to free Logan send your client to jail

Yeah I don't have a problem with murderers being in jail.

supichoo: Yeah I don't have a problem with murderers being in jail.

Do you have a problem with people not being able to receive legal representation without being turned in by their attorneys?

Without privledge this doesn't happen any way. He most likely wouldn't have told the lawyers and would ahve simply gone to his grave.
Actually, the innocent man still would be in jail.

Oh and why so much hate for these lawyers? What about the prosecutor, his defense attorney, the cops, the judge, the jury, and maybe the witnesses?
They're the one's that sent him to jail.

The question is not whether the lawyers would have been disbarred. The evidence that they had (the confession) would have been thrown out in a court of law.

kronicfeld: supichoo: Yeah I don't have a problem with murderers being in jail.

Do you have a problem with people not being able to receive legal representation without being turned in by their attorneys?

There must be something to be done. Drop the client as a conflict of interest, and then encourage someone else to question him about the other case without giving any incriminating details, therefore maintaining your attorney/client privilege. This runs the risk of the sack of shiat lying to them, but, well he seemed like a nutter, so maybe he would have confessed.

Or, find a way to plea bargain. I.e. if he was going to get the death penalty, plea that down to life in prison in exchange for the confession. Again, since the guy was a nutter, perhaps he would have some disgusting pleasure in the idea of an innocent man paying for his crime, even if that meant he were to be executed.

Granted, IANAL and these "solutions" have flaws, but trying them seems better to me than just letting a man known to be innocent rot in jail for 26 years.

IMHO, these lawyers really should do something to help this guy get his life back on track. Buy him a house and a car at least or help him start his own business or something. To paraphrase Shawshank, those 26 years took away a big part of his life that was worth living. It seems like the least they could do.

Should I be a lawyer? Because kronicfeld makes way more sense to me than anyone else in this thread...

mamoru: encourage someone else to question him about the other case without giving any incriminating details, therefore maintaining your attorney/client privilege

"Wink wink, nudge nudge, we're not saying our former client did it, but, you know, Mr. District Attorney, you might want to, uh, you know, give the guy a call..."

Grossly unethical. Grossly violative of the bedrock principles of privilege and fiduciary duty between attorney and client.

kronicfeld: Grossly unethical. Grossly violative of the bedrock principles of privilege and fiduciary duty between attorney and client.

I guess, like many others have said, it's a good thing I'm not a lawyer, nor would I want to be one. It's a sad state of affairs when what is ethical takes precedence over what is right.

However, setting the precedent of violating your ethics for what is right sets the stage for future violations when it is wrong.

I don't think I've seen a Catch-22 this perfect in quite some time.

:(

/still think it would be a nice gesture of the two lawyers did something for the innocent guy to help him get some of his life back

daveinaz: The evidence that they had (the confession) would have been thrown out in a court of law.

Absolutely - due to attorney-client privilege...

mamoru: I don't think I've seen a Catch-22 this perfect in quite some time.

This definitely is a real tough one...

Digeratus: Because kronicfeld makes way more sense to me than anyone else in this thread...

kronic IS doing a pretty good job at explaining this quandary...

kronicfeld: supichoo: Yeah I don't have a problem with murderers being in jail.

Do you have a problem with people not being able to receive legal representation without being turned in by their attorneys?

are they guilty?

Digeratus: Should I be a lawyer? Because kronicfeld makes way more sense to me than anyone else in this thread...

if you want to spend your career letting murderers free while innocent men go to jail for their crimes - then yes, the legal profession is for you!

Personally, I think jail should be for the guilty but i'm not a lawyer.

kronicfeld: Please feel free to suggest a rule change that does not create more problems than it "solves."

In the case of state-level crimes, the governor normally has the right to issue pardons and clemency orders. They could hire another lawyer, inform him of the dilemma (but not the name of the guilty client), and ask him to inform the governor that there is evidence inadmissible to the courts of the man's evidence, but to maintain both the confidentiality of the nature of the evidence AND the anonymity of the lawyers involved.

Ideally, the State Bar association should have rules that would allow someone from their Ethics Board to serve the function of the extra lawyer, but that might not insure attorney-client privilege.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably missing an angle.

abb3w: Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably missing an angle.

What is to stop any lawyer or group of lawyers from doing this to get guilty people pardoned?

mamoru: abb3w: Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably missing an angle.

What is to stop any lawyer or group of lawyers from doing this to get guilty people pardoned?

Donate to Hillary's campaign. that should get you off the hook (assuming she gets elected president of course).

Wow!! He was BLACK!?!?!?? NO WAI!!!!

(Can you guess the dominant tone of my post?)

Weaver95: Digeratus: Should I be a lawyer? Because kronicfeld makes way more sense to me than anyone else in this thread...

if you want to spend your career letting murderers free while innocent men go to jail for their crimes - then yes, the legal profession is for you!

Personally, I think jail should be for the guilty but i'm not a lawyer.

Well aren't you unique in your sanctimony? State a platitude, blame the lawyers --- and if you ever talk to a lawyer will be damn angry if they snitch on you. And if you knew they could...would you talk to him? How would your defense go then?

Gimme a break. You just feel better pretending you're above it all. While probably dodging jury duty.

he's innocent.

please don't expect lawyers to ever do the right thing!


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

abb3w: kronicfeld: Please feel free to suggest a rule change that does not create more problems than it "solves."

In the case of state-level crimes, the governor normally has the right to issue pardons and clemency orders. They could hire another lawyer, inform him of the dilemma (but not the name of the guilty client), and ask him to inform the governor that there is evidence inadmissible to the courts of the man's evidence, but to maintain both the confidentiality of the nature of the evidence AND the anonymity of the lawyers involved.

Ideally, the State Bar association should have rules that would allow someone from their Ethics Board to serve the function of the extra lawyer, but that might not insure attorney-client privilege.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably missing an angle.

You've, um, seen a lot of governors who will hand out pardons on the "honest injun he didn't do it, bud!" secret message principle, have you?

Seen any governors who'll issue pardons on the word of a lawyer? Srsly?

As always, Comrade Weaver95 puts all other revolutionaries to shame with his true understanding and embodiment of the Principles of Communal Hegemony. Next to him, you all look like monarchists and running-dogs!

Comrade Weaver95 understands that to lie is to poison the Self, and that without the Self, the State cannot function in organic harmony. Would you ask a beet farmer from Novosibirsk to do the work of a mining engineer at Magnetigorsk? Then how can you ask a lawyer to betray the best interests of the State of which he is a functionary?

If you know of any lawbreaking whatsoever--whether it be a murder or jaywalking--you must report it to your local Commissar or People's Revolutionary Tribunal at once. To do otherwise is a lie of omission, and as Weaver95 wisely says,

you don't have any 'right' to lie. Nobody else has the 'right' to lie FOR you, or help you cover up a lie. Get caught in a lie, Bad Stuff happens.

Bad stuff like treason to the principles of the Revolution! I often worry that were it not for his wisdom, all of Farkistan S.S.R. would be lost.

The lawyer had no way of knowing the innocent man would be imprisoned for 26 years. The rational person assumes an innocent person would not have enough evidence against them to surpass reasonable doubt in a jury.

Then again, juries today are so stupid that the word "reasonable" doesn't even have any meaning to them.

So this is how the rich get away with murder. They hire the best lawyer money can buy, tell them they murdered the bastard, and the lawyers can't do a damn thing but give their client the best representation possible. Not because it's the right thing but because the rich can have the lawyers whacked too.

/Hap Tovrea, you murdered your step-mother.
/Be a man and own up. Strike a plea deal.

Don't blame the lawyers. Blame the jury who convicted a man in spite of the testimony of several people that said he was nowhere near the crime scene. Juries are a joke.

He should've asked Red for a rock hammer.

What a dismal situation.

It's a good thing he didn't not kill anyone in Texas.

mamoru: What is to stop any lawyer or group of lawyers from doing this to get guilty people pardoned?

The fact there'd be more scrutiny if the guy had the money to bribe three lawyers into such a thing.

The idiot lawyer SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF. What a farking moron.

There probably should be a rule that if a person admits to a crime but its under the attorney client privilege and someone else is charged with or convicted of that crime, you cant convict the person who did it, you also can use it as exonerating evidence to the wrongfully accused in court. Keep the true criminals stuff secret.