Did anyone see 60 minutes lastnight?
26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison
I would have spoken out.
26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison
I would have spoken out.
26-Year Secret Kept
- Thread starter Binky
- Start date
Then you need to work to change the law.red said:
The two lawyers would have been in violation of the Bar rules if they had reported it and their client to whom they owed professional obligations might have been subject to the Death Penalty. Without their client's permission their hands were tied, unless they both wanted to be disbarred and then civilly sued by their client.
It you listened to them they were tortured by the issue and 'phoned their Law Society/Bar Association ethics hotline several times.
I wonder what would happen if they were charge with accessory after the fact?
I expect a monster law suit over this one.
I expect a monster law suit over this one.
That was an old story and while it pisses you off, the lawyers were correct in keeping the information secret. As much as it pains me to say this, as stated, if they had come forward they themselves would be fucked.
This is no different than any case where a defence attorny meets with his client and the client confesses. They cannot divulge that information legally to the court because this would totally destroy the legal system in place now. For eg: why would anyone ever trust their attorny if they knew their attorny could at any moment spill everything to the prosecutors? Why even bother with a trial then?
Landscaper: the lawyers cannot be charged with accessory after the fact because they had no involvement in the commission of the original crime and broke no laws by keeping the secret. In fact, they would be guilty of a crime if they had spoken up sooner....
Buddy in jail is getting out and will be compensated most likely anyways. I know money doesn't replace one's life but at least that's something.....now if they find out (and they probably will) if there was any wrongdoing by the prosecution in the original trial then there's going to be hell to pay.
This is no different than any case where a defence attorny meets with his client and the client confesses. They cannot divulge that information legally to the court because this would totally destroy the legal system in place now. For eg: why would anyone ever trust their attorny if they knew their attorny could at any moment spill everything to the prosecutors? Why even bother with a trial then?
Landscaper: the lawyers cannot be charged with accessory after the fact because they had no involvement in the commission of the original crime and broke no laws by keeping the secret. In fact, they would be guilty of a crime if they had spoken up sooner....
Buddy in jail is getting out and will be compensated most likely anyways. I know money doesn't replace one's life but at least that's something.....now if they find out (and they probably will) if there was any wrongdoing by the prosecution in the original trial then there's going to be hell to pay.
Wow, this is messed up 
Yes the lawyers could not rat on their client but dam, 26 years is a long long time. Didn't see the story, how did he get a new trail or let out ?
Gets me is how fast even today -after its know many people have been found guilty by mistake- many still are right there to send the guy to prison before he can even make his defense. Then when the truth comes out later on-if it ever does-some are like, thats very bad what happen or they still don't believe it.
Way too many people get found guilty in trails-IMO. Its like upper 90% are found guilty of some of the charges and a very very few are found not guilty. I don't believe the police make that few mistakes-even today. Theres no benefit of doubt, once the person gets bound over for trail, odds are very strong they be found guilty--unless they are a police officer, their odds of getting found guilty go down. A few other groups of people like doctors have better odds too. If the person doesn't work, ha, its bye bye.
Yes the lawyers could not rat on their client but dam, 26 years is a long long time. Didn't see the story, how did he get a new trail or let out ?
Gets me is how fast even today -after its know many people have been found guilty by mistake- many still are right there to send the guy to prison before he can even make his defense. Then when the truth comes out later on-if it ever does-some are like, thats very bad what happen or they still don't believe it.
Way too many people get found guilty in trails-IMO. Its like upper 90% are found guilty of some of the charges and a very very few are found not guilty. I don't believe the police make that few mistakes-even today. Theres no benefit of doubt, once the person gets bound over for trail, odds are very strong they be found guilty--unless they are a police officer, their odds of getting found guilty go down. A few other groups of people like doctors have better odds too. If the person doesn't work, ha, its bye bye.
Maybe could have anonymously reported the info to the cops. Who would know?
They spoke about their legal obligations and ethics. Me thinks that what is right trumps them all.
They spoke about their legal obligations and ethics. Me thinks that what is right trumps them all.
One doesn't have to mess with Attorney-Client Privilege in order to recognize that lawyers are members of the Court.Sukdeep said:
If a lawyer knows their client "did it", they can't simply walk into court and argue their client didn't do it. They can argue the prosecutor didn't prove the elements of the case, they can argue the law doesn't apply, they can argue the evidence is invalid. But they would be in violation of their oath to the Court to promote something they know to be a lie.
Of course, there are many lawyers who will say or do anything to "get their client off", regardless of their duties to the Court. And there are many other lawyers who will defend such lawyers' actions.
And while there are many lawyers who will defend the lawyer's actions in the example above, there are also many who would find a way to ensure a "full" investigation had been carried out in the case: after all, a lawyer is not always in the best position to evaluate a "confession". And while a lawyer cannot unilaterally reveal that a client confessed, they can make inquiries as to the state of investigations.
Remember Karla Holmolka's lawyer and the video tapes? Just think how many lawyers (or priests or rabbis or mullahs) out there could free innocent people (or in Holmolka's case given her a harsher penalty).
Let's remember that it's not the lawyers that determine innocence or guilt, and it's not the lawyers that need to perform the requisite investigation to gather the correct evidence either. I know that sounds like typical lazy ass union talk (electricians can't do the mechanic's job), but that's the system. Now could they have 'gone around' the system and fed anonymous information that may have led to better evidence being gathered? I think so. And I think their conscience would have been 'more' clear doing that.
One last comment is that, from the video, there's no proof that the guy who confessed actually committed the crime either. Only his word.
Let's remember that it's not the lawyers that determine innocence or guilt, and it's not the lawyers that need to perform the requisite investigation to gather the correct evidence either. I know that sounds like typical lazy ass union talk (electricians can't do the mechanic's job), but that's the system. Now could they have 'gone around' the system and fed anonymous information that may have led to better evidence being gathered? I think so. And I think their conscience would have been 'more' clear doing that.
One last comment is that, from the video, there's no proof that the guy who confessed actually committed the crime either. Only his word.
A couple of strange things. How could the lawyers get information the cops couldn't? (It didn't sound like they went looking either.). How did the prosecution with 3 eye witnesses if he didn't do it?
I realize the lawyers couldn't come forward but I am not sure why they couldn't encourage there source to go to the cops.
I realize the lawyers couldn't come forward but I am not sure why they couldn't encourage there source to go to the cops.
Personal liability aside (and personal liability in this case is nothing to be ignored either), I think the key issue is that if the lawyers talked, their client would go up for a Capital Crime. From a legal ethics perspective they're probably not allowed to do that.Aardvark154 said:
I wonder though if the law is any different in other states? For that matter, what would have happened here in Canada?
I agree with hunter001 on this though - how is it they lawyers got info that their client was the guilty one? Perhaps it may have been possible to focus attention (anonymously or otherwise) on this tidbit that may have set an innocent man free.
It is my understanding their client confessed to the crime hence they couldn't divulge that information under the client counsel privilege law.xarir said:
As for a client not arguing that their client is innocent if they know he's guilty? Dude, wtf are you smoking. Lawyers claim innocence for their clients even if they have direct evidence implicating their client.
Think about what you're saying, just for a moment. If they represent a guilty person, they could not allow that person to enter a "not guilty" plea because according to your logic, that would be illegal. I mean, WTF? For that matter, if a defense attorney didn't use the word innocent in his opening statement or at any time before or during the trial then the prosecution would automatically know the defendant confessed to the crime and the case would be closed. Think of it: attorney makes an opening statement, doesn't claim his client is innocent, the prosecution says: Prosecution rests since the defense attorney didn't claim his client is innocent, that means he confessed and therefore is guilty. We don't have to prove our case....Judge could them summarily find the defendant guilty.
yeah right.......
There is NO way the attorneys could convey, communicate, or otherwise divulge the information they had in any way shape or form to the authorities. If they did? They'd be immediately found guilty of breaking their oath and at a minimum, be disbarred and probably do jail time themselves.
As for how the man was found guilty to begin with? How there were eyewitnesses that said it was him? Hell, witnesses F up all the time...hell, there are people in prison who were coerced into confessing for things that they didn't do because so much pressure was put on them. (which is why I believe it is mandatory to video tape all interviews now).
I say it again, its messed up! I have no good answer what could have been done after the wrong person was found guilty.
Which is why jury's should be more careful before they convict the person.
I have hear of lawyers say they never ask and don't want to know if their client is in fact guilty if they are going to defend them. Claim is not needed Their job is to defend their client by attacking the side trying to convict them, not to prove their client did not do it.
But its very wrong what happen but then a client needs to trust their lawyer. Maybe something needs to change, maybe there should be a way out in certain cases.
Which is why jury's should be more careful before they convict the person.
I have hear of lawyers say they never ask and don't want to know if their client is in fact guilty if they are going to defend them. Claim is not needed
Their job is to defend their client by attacking the side trying to convict them, not to prove their client did not do it.But its very wrong what happen but then a client needs to trust their lawyer. Maybe something needs to change, maybe there should be a way out in certain cases.
All I can say after watching that vid is that poor man. I feel so badly for him and his brothers. His poor brother had tears in his eyes. They seem like a very caring family. I just loved his brothers words that he is going to show him life together. I am sure he will be happy once he gets out. His brothers seem very supportive and caring.
Justice
All lawyers are considered "officers of the court" - as such they have a duty to ensure that "justice" is done. This should NOT mean that they do everything and anything to get a client off (many lawyers seem to disagree with this - funny how money does that).
I have always said that if a defense lawyer finds out that their client is guilty (through a confession or any other means) then they should be pleading "guilty". This is "justice" - and the ONLY thing that should matter. To hell with privilidge - JUSTICE should trump all else.
A lawyer could still argue extenuating circumstances - but no way should they help a guilty person get off.
All lawyers are considered "officers of the court" - as such they have a duty to ensure that "justice" is done. This should NOT mean that they do everything and anything to get a client off (many lawyers seem to disagree with this - funny how money does that).
I have always said that if a defense lawyer finds out that their client is guilty (through a confession or any other means) then they should be pleading "guilty". This is "justice" - and the ONLY thing that should matter. To hell with privilidge - JUSTICE should trump all else.
A lawyer could still argue extenuating circumstances - but no way should they help a guilty person get off.
So in other words: you're ok with illegal search and seizure by the police? So the next time they have a suspect they are looking for they can break down your door, remove all your belongings, put you in jail, seize all your assets and it is up to YOU to prove your innocence? Remember: you said it so yourself: the defence attorney has to insure justice is done, nothing else. So if the police commit an illegal search, and find evidence, so what right?Quest4Less said:
Man, thank god I don't live in YOUR world.
If a defence attorney's job is to protect his client's rights guilty or not, then what do we need them for? Because what criminal in their right mind would ever admit anything to their defence attorney if their defence attorney would just turn them in? If we don't need defense attorneys then we don't need prosecutors. Heck, we don't even need judges. Just let the police determine who is innocent or guilty. Think of all the money we'd save!!!!
Man, you really have to take a step back and think before you post.
