26-Year Secret Kept

[S.C. Joe]

Some don't get a dime!

You never hear about them but all people who get locked up by mistake don't always collect money once they are released.

Sometimes they might be offer a small amount and if they turn in down and it goes to trail and the jury said theres no cause for damages, the person who spent years in prison gets not a single penny.

 

[tboy]

Some don't get a dime!

You never hear about them but all people who get locked up by mistake don't always collect money once they are released.

Sometimes they might be offer a small amount and if they turn in down and it goes to trail and the jury said theres no cause for damages, the person who spent years in prison gets not a single penny.

Joe: That may be true, (about the jury awards)but what jury wouldn't award someone anything for spending 26 yrs in jail wrongly? I mean juries have awarded hundreds of millions of dollars for a heck of a lot less.

For that matter, unless you have proof that 'some don't get a dime', I would say you're incorrect. Now if someone is arrested and held overnight by mistake, yeah, they wouldn't receive anything but an apology. For that matter, I'd say you'd have to be held for more than a week before any type of restitution will be discussed. Especially if you can show damages ie: lost income, missed bill payments, home foreclosure etc.

You don't hear about the settlement because I would hazard that it is part of the settlement agreement and I doubt very much that people wrongly jailed are offerred paultry sums. The government would be literally insane to do that. Can you imagine if Guy x goes to the press and says: I was wrongly convicted and jailed for 26 yrs and the government only offerred me TWELVE dollars? No politician wants that coming up on election day!

I stand corrected:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mwrongful.html

Actually, read the case example of Wilton Dedge. Read the part where the courts stated openly that "they wouldn't release him even if he is proven innocent"??? Can you believe that? I wonder if that judge is still sitting. If he was/is, that is incredibly WRONG is so many ways......

 

[Quest4Less]

Once again you fail to see the end result of your proposal. If you allow the defence attorney to make the decision to find his client guilty or innocent by simply deciding whether or not to inform the judge, then why do we need a judge? When you throw out the right of a defendant to confide in his attorney, you're not just throwing out their right to a fair trail, you're throwing out an innocent person's rights too. How do you propose to determine whose rights are upheld and whose aren't? According to you, you leave that determination up to the defence attorney. Once you do that, why even bother with a trial?

You forget that everyone is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in COURT. NOT by an attorney!!!!

You see, it would work like this:
Client gets arrested for a crime.
He says to his defence attorney: I didn't do it, I was at home watching TV
The defence attorney reads this person's record and finds he has (in the past) committed some violent crimes.
Defence attorney thinks "this guy doesn't deserve to be free" then goes to the judge and says "he confessed your honor, lock him up".

Or another scenario:
Client gets arrested for a crime
He says to the defence attorney: I did it, I'm guilty, but here's $60,000.00 to say I'm innocent and another $60K after I'm let off
Defence attorney goes to the judge: he's innocent your honor and poof, he goes free.

Or, in a perfect world: Why would ANY client confide ANYTHING in his attorney knowing that the attorney COULD use it against him?

YOU CANNOT LEAVE IT UP TO THE ATTORNEY TO DECIDE WHETHER SOMEONE IS INNOCENT OR GUILTY!!!!

Apparently you are just not able to understand what I am saying - and instead are making your own interpretation....

The defense lawyer would NOT be making ANY judgement. That is for the JUDGE (and or jury)!

If the person is guilty (and there are no extenuating circumstances) then the plea is guilty and the defense lawyer should just try to get the best deal he or she can.

If the person is innocent then the plea is innocent and a trial occurs. Judge and or jury decides outcome.

In your example of a defense lawyer just "saying" his client has confessed then the person would obviously jump up and say "no I didn't" - fire the lawyer - get a new one - and then the plea would be innocent and again a trial would occur.

In ALL of my examples NO INNOCENT PERSON would suffer - so where on earth are your fantasies coming from?????

ALL I am trying to say is if a lawyer KNOWS his client is guilty (and once again I will say it - THERE ARE NO EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES) - then the plea should be guilty and the lawyer just tries to get the best deal possible. Can you possibly understand that?

 

[Brownie69]

ALL I am trying to say is if a lawyer KNOWS his client is guilty (and once again I will say it - THERE ARE NO EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES) - then the plea should be guilty and the lawyer just tries to get the best deal possible. Can you possibly understand that?

Yeah, but all that means is most guilty clients just won't tell their lawyers what they did and will take their chances. Your assuming that guilty people will still confess to their lawyers if the law was changed in the manner that you suggest.

I'm willing to conceed that the guilty party's case may not be as strong if s/he doesn't tell the lawyer everything, but lawyers will get a feel of whether their clients are guilty or innocent by looking at the facts and evidence in the case anyway and will therefore prepare their cases accordingly. Some of these guilty parties will still get off and the police will still move to other suspects who are in fact innocent. I don't see how your suggestion will prevent the incorrect prosecution of innocent people.

 

[Aardvark154]

they can't go to the judge and say we have information that this guy is innocent? if this is the law then the law is wrong.

It is my understanding (possibly incorrect) that they did say something of the sort, but of course they couldn't give specifics.

 

[Aardvark154]

I wonder what would happen if they were charge with accessory after the fact?

I expect a monster law suit over this one.

Nothing because they won't be charged. They in fact obeyed the law.

 

[Aardvark154]

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 ?

Their client finally died, they had secured an agreement from him that upon his death they were free to tell the Court what they knew complete with a legal deposition executed at the time of the confession.

 

[Aardvark154]

I agree with hunter001 on this though - how is it they lawyers got info that their client was the guilty one?

He confessed to them.

 

[Aardvark154]

they only have one client? could they not say one of our clients has confessed to this crime but because of solicitor client privilege i can't say who?

It would open Pandora's box. Once you open the box by violating the privilege you are subject to cross examination etc. . .

 

[Aardvark154]

If the person is guilty (and there are no extenuating circumstances) then the plea is guilty and the defense lawyer should just try to get the best deal he or she can.

Indeed that is what ethical lawyers generally advise their clients in such circumstances. Likewise if a lawyer knows that his client is guilty (not suspects, knows) they can not advance a defence that denies that the client committed the crime.

 

[tboy]

Indeed that is what ethical lawyers generally advise their clients in such circumstances. Likewise if a lawyer knows that his client is guilty (not suspects, knows) they can not advance a defence that denies that the client committed the crime.

While you have made some valid points in this thread Aard, I don't agree at all with that last statement. If that were so they could not allow their clients to enter a "not guility" plea and as we all know, the ONLY time a client enters a guilty plea is during a plea bargain.

Time and Time again we have seen cases where the client is obviously guilty and the defence puts forth a "they didn't do it" defence. Need I remind everyone of the OJ Simpson trial? Good ol Johnny repeatedly played up the he's innocent, it was the LAPD who created the scenario to make him look guilty.

Anyone remember: If the glove don't fit? You must acquit?

 

[Aardvark154]

While you have made some valid points in this thread Aard, I don't agree at all with that last statement. If that were so they could not allow their clients to enter a "not guility" plea and as we all know, the ONLY time a client enters a guilty plea is during a plea bargain.

Time and Time again we have seen cases where the client is obviously guilty and the defence puts forth a "they didn't do it" defence.

If your client informs you that they committed the crime, the Bar rules prohibit you from putting forth a defense of "they did not commit the crime." There is an extremely important distinction between "they must have done it" and "I know they did it."

I'm not arguing that it's morally right, and many lawyers choose not to practice in the area of Criminal Defense for that reason.