26-Year Secret Kept

[hunter001]

The point that you and hunter so failingly don't grasp is that once you through out a defendant's rights, you throw out everyone's rights.

Actually if you read what I wrote . A little early for you to start smoking your c**** Tboy?

The lawyer can resign a case if he has ethical problems but again everyone is entitled to a defense or the system is worthless.

and

Like it or not our system is setup to protect everyone including the guilty. It is the job of prosecution to prove guilt or innocence.

But again you on one of your rants to drive up your post count. Please continue you regularly scheduled rant.

 

[Brownie69]

I love how these threads go from the intellectual to the insulting....

 

[tboy]

I love how these threads go from the intellectual to the insulting....

yeah, that's hunter for you!

But if you go back and read my posts, I edited out the reference to hunter long ago (not just in retort to his inane comments above).

 

[red]

I mean, look at it from the guy who was wrongly convicted, he was protected under this right and STILL went to jail. Imagine how many innocent people would be convicted if they couldn't confide in their defence attorney? There are abuses of the system now, can you imagine how easy it would be for a defence attorney to send someone to jail?

).

he didn't get protected under this rule- he went to jail for a crime he didn't do

 

[red]

Well, odds are that they only have one client who would be connected to any other particular case. For example, party X is charged with a crime but gets off. The Police go after party Y now. The lawyer for party X knows that party X was guilty, not party Y. If the lawyer for party X goes to the judge and says party Y didn't do it, the judge, the prosecution and the police can easily make the connection that the lawyer believes party X did it. There is a direct connection to parties X and Y in this scenario.

Solicitor-client privilege also extends to information that could reveal the contents of privileged information.

well then use the law society as the go between. they approach the judge and say two lawyer have a client who confessed. they don't breach solicitor client privilege. the facts are revealed, and the judge at least can consider the issue.

 

[tboy]

he didn't get protected under this rule- he went to jail for a crime he didn't do

Actually, as odd as it sounds, his rights WERE protected. How do I know? Because he had a trial, albeit the verdict was proven wrong, but he did have one. If we lose the right to privacy (aka attorney/client priviledge) there is no need for a trial.

well then use the law society as the go between. they approach the judge and say two lawyer have a client who confessed. they don't breach solicitor client privilege. the facts are revealed, and the judge at least can consider the issue.

The lawyers would still be guilty of breaching the attorney/client priviledge by disclosing the information TO the law society. The lawyers cannot tell ANYONE the information they have, .....

I know it isn't fair (in this case) and a great injustice was done, but everyone has to realize that this is a core value of our (and the US') legal system. The thing is: it IS fair to every defendant, guilty or not.

Let's look at the reverse of this situation: An innocent man is arrested. He tells his attorney he's innocent. The attoney tells the judge. According to the suggestions put forth here, no trial is necessary because hey, the client told his attorney he was innocent so that's enough...right?

 

[S.C. Joe]

One thing about crimes where the death penalty is concerned is they are even MORE careful to make sure that they don't off an innocent person.

Thats not always the case....check this story out..

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-28-07-06-16

Tenn. man on death row despite high court ruling


CROSSVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Multiple sclerosis has Paul House in a wheelchair. A tenacious prosecutor has him on death row, deemed too dangerous to be released two years after the U.S. Supreme Court said he likely isn't guilty.

That closely watched ruling, which made it easier for inmates to get new hearings on DNA evidence that emerges after their trials, and the fallout from it have left House in limbo while a prosecutor methodically battles every effort from the courts to have him retried.

Federal judges have done as the high court ordered: They reviewed his murder case and concluded new evidence raises reasonable doubt about his guilt. Not allowed to overturn the conviction, they took the extraordinary step of giving Tennessee a six-month deadline to bring House to trial or release him.

And still House, 46, is locked up in a Nashville prison.

An appeals court ruled in his favor this month, but that ruling also reset the 180-day countdown at zero.

U.S. District Judge Harry S. Mattice Jr. has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to consider terms and conditions of House's release, but prosecutors are taking their time in setting a date for a new trial.

"The Supreme Court has said, 'You just got the wrong person.' You would think ... that there would be some respect for that situation," said U.S. Circuit Judge Gilbert S. Merritt, who has heard portions of House's case and believes he isn't guilty of murder.

District Attorney Paul Phillips said he plans to retry House with old evidence from the first trial and some new evidence he wouldn't describe. He promises he has "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. House is guilty or we would not be re-prosecuting him."

For House's mother, it's hard not to think the state is delaying on purpose.

"What I really think, and I'm not the only one, is they just want him to linger in there until he dies. Then it will all go away, they think," Joyce House said recently at her white ranch-style home in Crossville, a town of about 10,000 some 100 miles east of Nashville.

Phillips denied prosecutors are intentionally putting off the case and noted the inmate's doctor testified House could live for decades with his illness.

"They just don't want to admit they made a mistake," Joyce House said. "They're not the only state that's ever made a mistake."

House entered state prison Feb. 8, 1986, with a death sentence for the 1985 slaying of Carolyn Muncey, a young mother of two whose badly beaten body was found near her Union County home in eastern Tennessee. But House adamantly maintains he did not kill her.

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court concluded in June 2006 that reasonable jurors wouldn't have convicted House if they had seen what DNA tests revealed in the late 1990s.

Semen collected from Muncey's nightgown and panties belonged to her husband, undercutting the premise that House murdered her during a sexual assault. The court also said House's lawyers offered new witnesses who provided "substantial evidence pointing to a different suspect."

The justices were referring to the victim's husband and House's former friend, Hubert Muncey. Besides the DNA testing on the semen, five witnesses came forward many years after the trial and gave testimony implicating Hubert Muncey.

The Associated Press tried several times to reach Hubert Muncey by phone at his home in Maynardville, Tenn. He remarried 13 years ago and his wife, Joann, said her husband has changed, is "into church now" and "not for anyone being put to death." She said Hubert Muncey is not upset by House's possible release but doesn't want him "bothering" their family.

In December, Mattice ordered the state to retry House within 180 days or release him. The state appealed, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - including Merritt - affirmed Mattice and the state finally dropped its challenges.

Phillips said he intends to meet the new deadline for a retrial by early November, although he hasn't decided whether to seek the death penalty again.

In a recent prison interview, House said he's lost all faith in the criminal justice system. Embittered and cynical, he looks older than he is. He can't walk or stand and has trouble speaking because of the multiple sclerosis, an incurable nervous system disorder that he contracted 10 years ago.

"It's taken me all these years to prove that I didn't do it. And I don't have another 20 years to invest," House said. "I didn't do the crime, but I've done the time."

Joyce House said her son wants two things when he gets out of prison: his favorite dish, chili verde, and a bedroom with windows so he can enjoy something he's missed for close to half his life - a view.

In her home, two bedroom windows look west over a farm filled with hogs, turkeys and cows and rolling green hills. House's mother has been preparing that room for him and taking medical classes to help care for him.

"I always thought he'd come home eventually," Joyce House said. "I didn't think it would take this long though. Whenever you're innocent, eventually the justice system works. But it shouldn't take 22 years."

 

[red]

The lawyers would still be guilty of breaching the attorney/client priviledge by disclosing the information TO the law society. The lawyers cannot tell ANYONE the information they have, .....

?

under the current rules thats correct. change the rule is what I am saying.

I know it isn't fair (in this case) and a great injustice was done, but everyone has to realize that this is a core value of our (and the US') legal system. The thing is: it IS fair to every defendant, guilty or not.

?

its not fair. its not right and its not justice. the rule were followed and an innocent man spent 26 years in jail. I call that wrong, immoral and unjust and a travesty.

Let's look at the reverse of this situation: An innocent man is arrested. He tells his attorney he's innocent. The attoney tells the judge. According to the suggestions put forth here, no trial is necessary because hey, the client told his attorney he was innocent so that's enough...right?

this is a spurious strawman argument. I won't bother to address it.

 

[Brownie69]

well then use the law society as the go between. they approach the judge and say two lawyer have a client who confessed. they don't breach solicitor client privilege. the facts are revealed, and the judge at least can consider the issue.

Thats a breach too as tboy points out.

Also, you have to remember that most crimes aren't triad multiple times against multiple suspects. What are the odds that the prosecution has failed to make a convinction against more than two people at seperate trials? Its very unlikely. In most cases, if the prosecution has enough evidence to go to trial then that evidence would most likely limit the field of suspects to one or two individuals. Having the Law Society act an inbetween party would still be a disclosure in 99% of the cases where such a scenario would arise.

 

[red]

Thats a breach too as tboy points out.

Also, you have to remember that most crimes aren't triad multiple times against multiple suspects. What are the odds that the prosecution has failed to make a convinction against more than two people at seperate trials? Its very unlikely. In most cases, if the prosecution has enough evidence to go to trial then that evidence would most likely limit the field of suspects to one or two individuals. Having the Law Society act an inbetween party would still be a disclosure in 99% of the cases where such a scenario would arise.

it still should be done. change the rules so it can be done. let justice be done

 

[Brownie69]

under the current rules thats correct. change the rule is what I am saying.

The problem is not the rules. The problem is the ability of lawyers to adequately present cases. The lawyers are the ones with the facts in front of them and they are the ones presenting the arguments. They are the ones with the onus prove guilt and innocence to the judge.

This is what they are paid for.

 

[Jade4u]

Maybe the law should be as such that everyone has the right to privacy and a lawyer to represent them for thier defense. But, if an innocent man is about to be executed or imprisoned for a great legnth of time and this man was at risk of this and a lawyer knows of such things then when the guilty virdict of an innocent man is handed down by a judge that a lawyer or any legal representitive that has such knowledge for the protection of an innocent must therefore at this such time come forward. If there is any such possibility that a mans life could end or long term imprisonment that is not in his best interest to go back into society to start over because of this protection of privacy law then it should be altered at the appropriate time and any charges of guilt to be taken away immediatly.

It is bad enough that the guilty could still confide in a lawyer and obtain his protection in court and possibly walk away a free man. But, what is worse is if someone innocent will take the fall for the crime of another man.

Fine protect him get him off of the charges, but do not let an innocent down if there is knowledge to rescue him. His lawyers got him off fine that is bad enough, but it should end there and nobody else to take the blame if there is information that does not make it before the courts that is known and hidden. Fine let it be heard and reversed in the end of the trial.

 

[Anynym]

Well, odds are that they only have one client who would be connected to any other particular case. For example, party X is charged with a crime but gets off. The Police go after party Y now. The lawyer for party X knows that party X was guilty, not party Y. If the lawyer for party X goes to the judge and says party Y didn't do it, the judge, the prosecution and the police can easily make the connection that the lawyer believes party X did it. There is a direct connection to parties X and Y in this scenario.

Solicitor-client privilege also extends to information that could reveal the contents of privileged information.

That certainly seems to be a popular interpretation.

But IMAO, it's a very wrong interpretation.

Let's look at Judicial Inquiries, or Parliamentary Inquiries. The information presented is Privileged in exactly the same way as solicitor-client privilege, except that it's not private (or secret): it cannot be used as evidence against an accused.

And that's a very powerful aspect of privilege: you can say you did it, but unless the Prosecutor has independent evidence, you won't be convicted. And even more, the Prosecutor cannot use that "confession" as the cause to launch an investigation. Sure, if an investigation is underway the detectives may redouble their efforts, but a confession in a Privileged environment is not something a detective can take to a judge for a search warrant.

I believe that what people fear is that by allowing certain facts to become public knowledge, other evidence will surface which could convict them.

As for attorney-client privilege, the concept of secrecy has so overshadowed so much of the discussion that the principle of justice seems to have been lost.

 

[tboy]

....
As for attorney-client privilege, the concept of secrecy has so overshadowed so much of the discussion that the principle of justice seems to have been lost.

See, that's where many people make the initial mistake:

It isn't a justice system, it is a legal system. Justice has nothing to do with it.......(maybe originally it did, but the justice aspect has long since been removed.....)

Actually, with Parliamentary Inquiries, it isn't protected the way attorney client priviledges are. Anything (or most things) to do with the government are public.....and it isn't one person being involved, it is typically an investigation of an organization or of the government itself (which IS supposed to be public but most politicians think of it as their own private bank machine).

 

[Quest4Less]

1) Sure, there would be less guilty people on the street, but there'd be less innocent people as well. When you remove someone's right to a fair trial, you remove all rights in regards to anything to do with the law.
2) The leap of logic from the defence attorney/client priviledge to illegal seach and seizure isn't that far. You're saying that if the accused is guilty, the defence attorny should inform the courts of this even if the evidence was obtained illegally (aka illegal search and seizure). Why is that so far fetched? So if someone who has committed a crime cannot challenge evidence obtained illegally, then EVERYONE is subject to illegal seach and seizure because why would the cops have to do it legally if they don't have to?

Once again you fail to understand what I am saying. I'm not for throwing anyone's rights out, and I fail to see how more innocent people would end up in jail???? Did you not read / understand what I wrote?

In your example of an "illegal search" the case would go like this - defense lawyer stands up and says yes your honour my client is guilty of ABC... however the evidence to this crime was obtained by illegal means becase of DEF.... judge would then rule case dismissed. So where is the harm??

The only "rights" I'm for getting rid of is the "right" of the guilty to walk free.

 

[Brownie69]

That certainly seems to be a popular interpretation.

But IMAO, it's a very wrong interpretation.

Let's look at Judicial Inquiries, or Parliamentary Inquiries. The information presented is Privileged in exactly the same way as solicitor-client privilege, except that it's not private (or secret): it cannot be used as evidence against an accused.

And that's a very powerful aspect of privilege: you can say you did it, but unless the Prosecutor has independent evidence, you won't be convicted. And even more, the Prosecutor cannot use that "confession" as the cause to launch an investigation. Sure, if an investigation is underway the detectives may redouble their efforts, but a confession in a Privileged environment is not something a detective can take to a judge for a search warrant.

I believe that what people fear is that by allowing certain facts to become public knowledge, other evidence will surface which could convict them.

As for attorney-client privilege, the concept of secrecy has so overshadowed so much of the discussion that the principle of justice seems to have been lost.

Your arguments are correct if you change the subject, but you are now missing the point of theis thread. This thread was created to question why two lawyers stood by and said nothing when an innocent man spent 26 years in jail. The reason for it is solicitor-client privilege.

The fact that Judicial or Parliamentary Inquiries are public records has nothing to do with the repercussions a lawyer would face if s/he breached solicitor-client privilege.

Now if you were saying that the law should be changed to be more in line with the procedures of Judicial or Parliamentary Inquiries then you may have a point. But you'd still be threading dangerous lines. If a client confesses to his lawyer and the lawyer then tells the world his client did it, believe me, crown attorneys would find a way to reopen the cases and convict the lawyer's client. Redouble their efforts? You bet your ass. If they can redouble their efforts to get a conviction against an innocent man then they can surely do it for the right suspect when they already know he's guilty. This talk about a lawyer having a voice to say his client did it kind of defeats the purpose of having someone represent you when you have the right to a fair trial doesn't it? In fact it underminds our entire legal system and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Believe me, the system is flawed, but it wasn't created by idiots.

 

[Brownie69]

The only "rights" I'm for getting rid of is the "right" of the guilty to walk free.

While I'm all for that, I also believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." The right to a fair trial is essential to that concept and unfortunately some of the guilty will slip through the cracks. I'm not willing to sacrifice the rights to a fair trial and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" to catch more guilty parties. I prefer to put more onus on the prosecutors.

 

[tboy]

Once again you fail to understand what I am saying. I'm not for throwing anyone's rights out, and I fail to see how more innocent people would end up in jail???? Did you not read / understand what I wrote?

In your example of an "illegal search" the case would go like this - defense lawyer stands up and says yes your honour my client is guilty of ABC... however the evidence to this crime was obtained by illegal means becase of DEF.... judge would then rule case dismissed. So where is the harm??

The only "rights" I'm for getting rid of is the "right" of the guilty to walk free.

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!!!!

 

[tboy]

...yeah, except that we all do in fact make value judgments. It's human nature.

.....

Which is my point exactly, thanks for putting into simpler words than I could lol. See, a judge is supposed to make his judgements based on the law, not his "feelings" where if you left it up to an attorney, they may make decisions that can affect whether or not you're found guilty or innocent. That isn't their place to do. A defence attorney's job is to try (there's that word again) the evidence presented before the court and see if it is in fact evidence and was obtained legally. Even if the person is guilty and he knows it, if the evidence was obtained illegally then the person SHOULD go free. I know it's hard to fathom but the rule that protects the guilty, also protects the innocent (which is why I said that before!!).

 

[makaveli8001]

pretty messed up story...like that TV show where the cop is sent to jail over murders he did not commit...was framed by other cops. Anyone remember the title of it? It's a recent show...anyways, the character in the show got $$$...like 50 million...of course this was Los Angeles...I dunno how much this guy is gonna get