Attorney-client privilege kept innocent man jailed 26 years

[DesertFox]

For a quarter of a century, defense lawyers Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz were bound by the rules of law to hold onto a secret that now could mean freedom for a man serving a life sentence for murder.

The secret -- memorialized in a notarized affidavit that they locked in a metal box -- was that their client, Andrew Wilson, admitted that he shotgunned to death a security guard at a McDonald's restaurant on the South Side in January 1982.

Bound to silence by attorney-client privilege, Kunz and Coventry could do nothing as another man, Alton Logan, 54, was tried and convicted instead.

The two lawyers testified in court last week that they were bound by the attorney-client privilege and Wilson's admonition that they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died of natural causes Nov. 19.

More (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-secretjan19,0,6475630,print.story?coll=chi_tab01_l ayout)

[DesertFox]

Boy. Talk about a clash of principles.

[S-T]

Bovine feces.

I don't care what the law is. You do what is morally right, and these men broke the Ninth Commandment by allowing an innocent man to rot in prison.

"We ought to obey God rather than men." - The Apostle Peter, Acts 5:29

[Eagle1]

The law is not morality. We may pretend to think it is, and in many ways that is what we strive to make it. But in order to check the power of some the guilty must sometimes go free and the innocent must at times be condemned.

[ThomasMore]

For a quarter of a century, defense lawyers Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz were bound by the rules of law to hold onto a secret that now could mean freedom for a man serving a life sentence for murder.

The secret -- memorialized in a notarized affidavit that they locked in a metal box -- was that their client, Andrew Wilson, admitted that he shotgunned to death a security guard at a McDonald's restaurant on the South Side in January 1982.

Bound to silence by attorney-client privilege, Kunz and Coventry could do nothing as another man, Alton Logan, 54, was tried and convicted instead.

The two lawyers testified in court last week that they were bound by the attorney-client privilege and Wilson's admonition that they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died of natural causes Nov. 19.

More (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-secretjan19,0,6475630,print.story?coll=chi_tab01_l ayout)

Boy. Talk about a clash of principles.

Bovine feces.

I don't care what the law is. You do what is morally right, and these men broke the Ninth Commandment by allowing an innocent man to rot in prison.

"We ought to obey God rather than men." - The Apostle Peter, Acts 5:29

This precise issue comes up in every law-school ethics class, because it is an obvious conundrum.

The English and American legal systems provide that the judge and jury are responsible for the interests of justice. The lawyer is in effect owned by his client, and is expected to follow the rules laid out for that role.

That is not to say that lawyers don't have human concern for others or the the injustices inherent to the system -- most of those in my experience, do. (Some have truly sold their souls.)

The attorney-client privilege is absolute, and it is held by the client. The attorney (1) loses his license, (2) goes to jail, and (3) gets sued for every penny he has, if he violates the privilege. Nondisclosure is what the profession requires and expects of him.

OTOH, any lawyer with a drop of humanity left in him still has deep concern for the innocent party and the interests of justice.

An attorney can ask whether his client is willing to go to the police, but he cannot give him legal advice to do so or otherwise try to intimidate or compel him to do so. If the client agrees, the attorney can act as an intermediary. If the client refuses, the attorney cannot take it upon himself to disclose his client's confession.

Some lawyers and law professors argue that a the most a lawyer can then legally do is contact the judge, and say "I have reason to believe the defendant is not the person responsible." When asked further, you could only say that "I can't say more than that."

Some attorneys disagree even with that. They argue that if an attorney says even that much, and police turn their attention to the attorney's client because of it, then the attorney has violated the attorney-client privilege.

[ThomasMore]

The law is not morality. We may pretend to think it is, and in many ways that is what we strive to make it.

:yeahthat:

Any honest lawyer will tell you that the legal system is NOT a system of justice. It is a system of dispute resolution designed to maintain order. At its best, the law can approximate justice, but it is a fallen, flawed institution as all human institutions are.

[S-T]

The attorney-client privilege is absolute, and it is held by the client. The attorney (1) loses his license, (2) goes to jail, and (3) gets sued for every penny he has, if he violates the privilege. Nondisclosure is what the profession requires and expects of him.[/COLOR]

Then they should have broken the law rather than break the Ninth Commandment and allow an innocent man to rot in prison.

Sometimes, you have to suffer for what is right, like Corrie ten Boom did when she went to a Nazi prison for helping Jews escape the Holocaust. The Bible is filled with examples of godly men who suffered rather than obey the king/government/law. Like I said above, I don't care what the law is. If you have a choice between breaking the law of man and breaking the law of God, you choose to obey God. That should not even be a question.

"We ought to obey God rather than men." - The Apostle Peter, Acts 5:29

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." -- Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:28

[ThomasMore]

Bovine feces.

I don't care what the law is. You do what is morally right, and these men broke the Ninth Commandment by allowing an innocent man to rot in prison.

"We ought to obey God rather than men." - The Apostle Peter, Acts 5:29

As a Christian who is licensed to practice law (and who did actively before I was a Christian), I struggle with this. The Bible tells us to seek justice, and to do our jobs well. It does not tell us to violate our oaths.

But is that enough? The American legal system at least approximates justice (unlike the systems in Nazi Germany or Cuba, which were institutionalized abuse).

If you can't do this and adhere to your duties to God, get out of the profession, preferably before you find yourself in the situation of compromising a client's confidence.

I got out.

As for the Ninth Amendment:

This is not a Ninth Amendment situation for a number of reasons. First, murder is a state law crime, not a federal one, so the Ninth Amendment doesn't come into play.

Second, the Ninth Amendment limits Federal power over the states -- it says nothing about attorney-client privilege or an attorney's positive duty to rat out his client.

Third, the attorney-client privilege was extant both in English and American common law for centuries before the Constitution was written. The drafters of the Constitution knew well that attorneys must keep their clients' information privileged.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[namvet527]

We are either a country of laws or we are not. Libpukes do not believe in the rule of law unless it supports their godless lifestyles.

The people of the Bible SUFFERED for breaking the law & doing what was right. If you are willing to SUFFER the consequences of breaking the law then go ahead. Corrie ten Boom also suffered. She was right in what she did but still she suffered terribly. Are YOU willing to GO TO PRISON & SUFFER for doing what you think is right?

If you feel a law in morally wrong then work to change it do not be an anarchist & break whatever law YOU FEEL is wrong.

That liberal saying:
"It is better than 400 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to jail" is completely wrong. Here is why:

Let's say 400 guilty rapists, child molesters, thieves, murderers go free. Now they can go out, let's take a conservative estimate, & do whatever crime against 5 INNOCENT each. That is 2000 INNOCENT people that have been harmed instead of 1 innocent going to jail. Plus our society is far less safe.

I am tired of guilty criminals getting off on a "TECHNICALITY."

I say:
It is better than 1 innocent go to jail than even 5 guilty go free & create an insecure society.

[ThomasMore]

Here is an interesting thought.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the attorney-client privilege does NOT expire upon a client's death. Swidler & Berlin et al . v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998).

This would apply to federal cases. I don't know what the law is in Illinois.

[S-T]

As for the Ninth Amendment:

Not the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Commandment, as in the second to last of the Ten Commandments.

[ThomasMore]

Namvet, good to see you back!

We are either a country of laws or we are not.

The lawyers followed the law. To the letter.

The people of the Bible SUFFERED for breaking the law & doing what was right. If you are willing to SUFFER the consequences of breaking the law then go ahead. Corrie ten Boom also suffered. She was right in what she did but still she suffered terribly. Are YOU willing to GO TO PRISON & SUFFER for doing what you think is right?

If you feel a law in morally wrong then work to change it do not be an anarchist & break whatever law YOU FEEL is wrong.

There is a reason that attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct, and has been for at least 400 years. There is both good and bad in that policy.

As a lawyer, you are NOT your own person. You owe a duty, consistent with the law, to do everything in your power to pursue your client's interests as he gives them to you (perjury, fraud on the court, or active participation in illegality are not among them -- lawyers are prohibited from participating in these). If this is not something you can live with, don't be a lawyer.

The pressures and soul-corrupting aspects of this are the reasons I walked away from the law after 10 years of active practice.

That liberal saying:
"It is better than 400 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to jail" is completely wrong. Here is why:

Let's say 400 guilty rapists, child molesters, thieves, murderers go free. Now they can go out, let's take a conservative estimate, & do whatever crime against 5 INNOCENT each. That is 2000 INNOCENT people that have been harmed instead of 1 innocent going to jail. Plus our society is far less safe.

I am tired of guilty criminals getting off on a "TECHNICALITY."

I say:
It is better than 1 innocent go to jail than even 5 guilty go free & create an insecure society.

I don't think either is good. I don't want to see one guilty go free, or one innocent incarcerated.

Given that we are working with an imperfect, human system, the question is how to structure the legal system to BEST achieve justice. We will never get it perfect.

[ThomasMore]

Not the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Commandment, as in the second to last of the Ten Commandments.

Guess I need my glasses. Sorry, S-T. Exodus 20:2-17.

2 I am Jehovah thy God, who hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of a house of servants.

3 'Thou hast no other Gods before Me.

4 Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image, or any likeness which is in the heavens above, or which is in the earth beneath, or which is in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou dost not bow thyself to them, nor serve them: for I, Jehovah thy God, am a zealous God, charging iniquity of fathers on sons, on the third generation, and on the fourth, of those hating Me, 6 and doing kindness to thousands, of those loving Me and keeping My commands.

7 'Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing, for Jehovah acquitteth not him who taketh up His name for a vain thing.

8 'Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it; 9 six days thou dost labour, and hast done all thy work, 10 and the seventh day is a Sabbath to Jehovah thy God; thou dost not do any work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy handmaid, and thy cattle, and thy sojourner who is within thy gates, -- 11 for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it.

12 'Honour thy father and thy mother, so that thy days are prolonged on the ground which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee.

13 'Thou dost not murder.

14 'Thou dost not commit adultery.

15 'Thou dost not steal.

16 'Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour a false testimony.

17 Thou dost not desire the house of thy neighbour, thou dost not desire the wife of thy neighbour, or his man-servant, or his handmaid, or his ox, or his ass, or anything which is thy neighbour's.'

The lawyers didn't violate the Ninth Commandment. There is no evidence that they were called to testify in the murder trial. If they had spoken falsely, they would have violated both the 9th Commandment and Illinois law.

The lawyers were not called to testify, and except in exceptional circumstances, they would not have been. Consistent with their legal duties, they remained silent. Silence isn't bearing false witness.

A great historical movie, A Man for All Seasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons_(1966_film)), dealt precisely with the issues of taking oaths, maintaining silence, and serving God while a lawyer and counselor. It ended badly for the lawyer, whose last words as he went to his execution were "the king's good servant, but God's first," and whose name just happened to be Thomas More (http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/morebio.htm).

http://www.thomasmore.org/graphics/sb_thomasmore/imag135.jpg <object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7SHzBoU_05A&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7SHzBoU_05A&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

[S-T]

We are either a country of laws or we are not. Libpukes do not believe in the rule of law unless it supports their godless lifestyles.

Are you calling me a liberal?

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/roar1.gif

I'm not saying that you break whatever law you feel like breaking. I am saying that if you have a choice between obeying the law of man (attorney-client privilege) or the law of God (Exodus 20:16) you obey the law of God. To me, there is no dilemma about what these men should have done. And if obeying God's law means that you will be punished by man's law, you obey God's law anyway.

The lawyers didn't violate the Ninth Commandment. There is no evidence that they were called to testify in the murder trial, or even speak to the police. If they had spoken falsely, they would have violated BOTH the 9th Commandment and Illinois law.

The King James Version, English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible command God's people to not "bear false witness" against their neighbor - what translation are you using?

Nonetheless, The fact that these men lied passively rather than actively does not absolve them of the sin they committed. They knew an innocent man was going to be convicted and go to prison, and they allowed it to happen.

[S-T]

By the way, while breaking the law would have been the right thing to do, it would also be proper to punish them for doing so. Attorney-client privilege is a very important aspect of our legal system for many reasons and needs to be enforced. I'm not saying and I don't believe there should be exceptions to the law. What I am saying is that people are always obligated to obey God's law if there is a conflict between God's law and man's law.

And no, it isn't fair. Sometimes life isn't fair.

[DesertFox]

Well, if YOU really would throw your life away like that, S-T, meaning your wife and kids also pay the penalty, then you're a better man than I am. I freely admit it.

[ThomasMore]

The King James Version, English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible command God's people to not "bear false witness" against their neighbor - what translation are you using?

Bearing false witness is the same thing. It is speaking falsely. In almost all cases, silence is not the same as lying.

As for the version, I used Young's Literal Translation (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=15#vinfo). Here was my direct source: Online Parallel Bible (http://yltbible.com/exodus/20.htm).

Nonetheless, The fact that these men lied passively rather than actively does not absolve them of the sin they committed.

I disagree with the characterization. Silence is not a lie. If the men sinned, you will have to show me a scripture reference establishing a positive duty to come forward -- not a prohibition against lying: they didn't lie.

They knew an innocent man was going to be convicted and go to prison, and they allowed it to happen.

True enough.

Their job required them to do this. And if you read the article, they were obviously burdened and grieved by this. And they came forward the moment they could.

One comment, S-T. We have been looking at one side of this equation, without considering the other side.

In Europe, when you hire a lawyer, his first duty is to the State, second, to you. You do not have the same expectation of confidence, and if you inadvertently admit a violation, your own lawyer can rat you out to the government. The English common law (which the US also adopted) provides that the lawyer's first duty is your welfare.

There are cases on both sides that get ugly. We are looking at one case and talking about potentially overturning the entire system without considering the other side.

And if the correct answer is "violate the code when an individual injustice might be done," then the person willing to do that dishonors and violates his oath of office. He has no business becoming an attorney.

[S-T]

In almost all cases, silence is not the same as lying.

Almost all? Here's your exception, then. :D

I disagree. Silence is not a lie.

Well which is it? Almost all cases, or all cases?

Seriously, what do you think Jesus would have had these attorneys do? Somehow, I doubt Jesus would remain silent. We know for a fact that Jesus would be willing to suffer to obey His Father.

[DesertFox]

Thomas, wouldn't it be lying by omission?

[S-T]

Well, if YOU really would throw your life away like that, S-T, meaning your wife and kids also pay the penalty, then you're a better man than I am. I freely admit it.

I'll be honest. I can't say what I would do if I were in that situation. I am a sinner just like everyone else, saved by the grace of God. In my state as a wretched sinner, would I be weak? Maybe I would, but my sin and hypocrisy does not change the eternal truth of God's holy Word.

[S-T]

We are looking at one case and talking about potentially overturning the entire system without considering the other side.

Hold on a minute.

I am not advocating abolishing attorney-client privilege. See post #15.

[DeclinetoState]

What if this had been a death-penalty case? Would the lawyers have been obligated to let an innocent man be executed in order to maintain lawyer-client privilege?

[S-T]

What if this had been a death-penalty case? Would the lawyers have been obligated to let an innocent man be executed in order to maintain lawyer-client privilege?

It was.

On March 17, 1982, Coventry and Kunz drew up an affidavit:

"I have obtained information through privileged sources that a man named Alton Logan who was charged with the fatal shooting of Lloyd Wickliffe [sic] at on or about 11 Jan. 82 is in fact not responsible for that shooting that in fact another person was responsible."

Each lawyer signed it, as did a witness and a notary public. Then they sealed it in a metal box.

"We were freaked out because it was really volatile and because the state was seeking the death penalty against Logan," said Coventry, who has kept the box ever since.

Kunz added that they prepared the document "so that if we were ever able to speak up, no one could say we were just making this up now."

[ColonialMarine0431]

I took some law classes in college and considered getting a law degree. Then one day one of my professors said, and I quote, "The truth has no place in a court of law." I knew then and there that I would'nt pursue it any further.

[ThomasMore]

It is not dishonest to remain silent if nobody has asked you a question.

It is not dishonest, when asked a question, to say that you will not answer it.

I am not saying this to be facile. It is not an easy thing, especially in a matter as important as this. As a matter of law, their duty was clear.

On the other hand, as human beings they had to grieve every day that they were prohibited from coming forward.

As a Christian, I would feel this even more keenly. In fact, I have removed myself from such conundrums by stepping away from the active practice of law.

--- edited to add the following scenario --- posts following this one did not originally see the scenario ---

Let's change up the scenario to one not involving law, one which could happen to anyone.

You work for a company. In your job, you sometimes receive confidential business information, and you have signed a binding confidentiality agreement. You learn that a good friend of yours will soon lose his job due to reductions in force -- he has no idea. You are not permitted to share this information with him. You also know that your friend needs and depends on this job because of a new baby, and he asked his boss (not you) whether his job was secure. His boss told him not to worry. He is proceeding on incorrect information.

If you tell him he will lose his job, he will have the opportunity to prepare. You also know him well enough to know that he will likely contact his boss, regardless of what you ask him to do. If you withhold this information from him, he will be in a world of hurt.

What does the Bible command? Do you affirmatively go to him and tell him, or do you remain silent?

If you tell him, what happened to your agreement with your employer? Setting aside the potential professional and legal consequences to you, have you honored your commitment?

If you remain silent, is your silence a lie? You know the truth, and you know that your friend has false information, even though you didn't say it.

If your friend comes to you and asks you, how do you answer him?

[ColonialMarine0431]

It's a matter of morals and conscience. 2 things lawyers seem to lack.

[ThomasMore]

I took some law classes in college and considered getting a law degree. Then one day one of my professors said, and I quote, "The truth has no place in a court of law." I knew then and there that I would'nt pursue it any further.

Well, that speaks to one professor's cynical view of the law. He is a poor excuse for a professor.

I prepared many witnesses for depositions and trials, and I put many witnesses on witness stands. When I prepared my witnesses, I ALWAYS started out with the following statements:

"Whatever happens, tell the truth.

If you don't know the answer to a question, don't guess. Say, "I don't know." If you don't remember, say "I don't remember." But if you do know the answer to a question, it is perjury to say "I don't know," or "I don't remember." I cannot let you do that. If you are even thinking of lying, get yourself another lawyer now. I won't be part of it.

Answer only the question you were asked. The other attorney will ask you questions that call for either a "yes" or "no" answer -- keep your answers to just those two words. Don't volunteer any extra information or try to explain yourself. When there is more to be said, leave it to me to ask you the questions.

If I object to a question the other lawyer asks you, don't answer it. Wait for the judge to rule on the question."

My point is that it is possible to be a lawyer and committed to the truth. I always took it seriously.

It's a matter of morals and conscience. 2 things lawyers seem to lack.

CM, if anyone would, you can see that the two lawyers were very concerned about the fate of the defendant.

They had their client prepare an affidavit. The minute their client died, they came forward. These guys were sick about what was expected of them, and what was happening to the innocent defendant.

These are two men who quite clearly had morals and a conscience.

[ThomasMore]

Hold on a minute.

I am not advocating abolishing attorney-client privilege. See post #15.

The only other option is for a lawyer to swear an oath to uphold this standard, then violate it.

The only way to navigate this without dishonesty is by maintaining silence.

And that is exactly what is expected.

By the way, S-T, there were a number of times I thought it was awful -- so I understand EXACTLY how you feel.

[ColonialMarine0431]

Well, that speaks to one professor's cynical view of the law. He is a poor excuse for a professor.

I prepared many witnesses for depositions and trials, and I put many witnesses on witness stands. When I prepared my witnesses, I ALWAYS started out with the following statements:

"Whatever happens, tell the truth.

If you don't know the answer to a question, don't guess. Say, "I don't know." If you don't remember, say "I don't remember." But if you do know the answer to a question, it is perjury to say "I don't know," or "I don't remember." I cannot let you do that. If you are even thinking of lying, get yourself another lawyer now. I won't be part of it.

Answer only the question you were asked. The other attorney will ask you questions that call for either a "yes" or "no" answer -- keep your answers to just those two words. Don't volunteer any extra information or try to explain yourself. When there is more to be said, leave it to me to ask you the questions.

If I object to a question the other lawyer asks you, don't answer it. Wait for the judge to rule on the question."

My point is that it is possible to be a lawyer and committed to the truth. I always took it seriously.



CM, if anyone would, you can see that the two lawyers were very concerned about the fate of the defendant.

They had their client prepare an affidavit. The minute their client died, they came forward. These guys were sick about what was expected of them, and what was happening to the innocent defendant.

These are two men who quite clearly had morals and a conscience.

I may be wrong. I'm just a dumb marine Sgt. I could never be a lawyer. Too many split hairs. All I know is what I feel is right or wrong.

You know what they say: Everybody hates lawyers....till they need one.

Apologies if I offended you Sir.

[ColonialMarine0431]

And judging by the time, it appears we both suffer from insomnia. :)

[ThomasMore]

No offense taken, Marine!

One of my law school classmates had the opportunity to enter the USMC as a Captain, but he enlisted and went to Gulf War I as a Corporal. A good man and a good conservative. And now, a busy lawyer.

Nothing dumb about Marine Sergeants. BTW, my next-door neighbor is a USN Command Master Chief.

Me, I just fly planes now. Much cleaner. Much easier to look in the mirror. But I'm much poorer, too. :biggrin:


My toy:

1958

[ColonialMarine0431]

Cool! I have an Uncle that was a Navy pilot, then flew with Eastern before it went out of business. :thumb:

[TeenageRepublican]

I haven't flown in a plane at all...

*Silence, walks away...*

[ThomasMore]

Cool! I have an Uncle that was a Navy pilot, then flew with Eastern before it went out of business. :thumb:

I might be following him...in the unemployment line. We'll see.

I came from Midwest's regional airline Skyway. The mainline just announced that it is shutting the regional down (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=708605) (about 400 people will be out of work, many of them colleagues and friends of mine). We have also been told on our side to watch for possible furloughs.

(The MD-80 was considered pretty fuel-efficient when it came out around 1980. Even though production of the type ended just a couple of years ago, by 21st Century standards, it is a fuel hog.)

[ThomasMore]

I haven't flown in a plane at all...

*Silence, walks away...*

I have a couple of pals in Colorado who are commercial pilots and who have CFI certificates (Certified Flight Instructors). Maybe I could get you set up sometime.

[TeenageRepublican]

I really like Lawyers, but some I just want to knock out.
A man that was sort of a lawyer that I liked was William Wilberforce. I noticed that he was a conservative after thinking about it.
He decided to combine both God and the Law to get rid of slavery. And it actually worked.

[DeclinetoState]

I took some law classes in college and considered getting a law degree. Then one day one of my professors said, and I quote, "The truth has no place in a court of law." I knew then and there that I would'nt pursue it any further. I prepared many witnesses for depositions and trials, and I put many witnesses on witness stands. When I prepared my witnesses, I ALWAYS started out with the following statements:

"Whatever happens, tell the truth.

If you don't know the answer to a question, don't guess. Say, "I don't know." If you don't remember, say "I don't remember." But if you do know the answer to a question, it is perjury to say "I don't know," or "I don't remember." I cannot let you do that. If you are even thinking of lying, get yourself another lawyer now. I won't be part of it.

Answer only the question you were asked. The other attorney will ask you questions that call for either a "yes" or "no" answer -- keep your answers to just those two words. Don't volunteer any extra information or try to explain yourself. When there is more to be said, leave it to me to ask you the questions.

If I object to a question the other lawyer asks you, don't answer it. Wait for the judge to rule on the question." If you read the Perry Mason stories, it seems you get the more cynical vision of the law vs. truth question that ColonialMarine's professor espoused. If you watch the TV shows, however, ThomasMore's ideals seem to be supported not only by Perry, but also by Hamilton Burger, the D.A. and usual nemesis.

[ColonialMarine0431]

I might be following him...in the unemployment line. We'll see.

I came from Midwest's regional airline Skyway. The mainline just announced that it is shutting the regional down (about 400 people will be out of work, many of them colleagues and friends of mine). We have also been told on our side to watch for possible furloughs.

(The MD-80 was considered pretty fuel-efficient when it came out around 1980. Even though production of the type ended just a couple of years ago, by 21st Century standards, it is a fuel hog.)


He retired just when Eastern went under. Moved from Atlanta to Florida. I think he flew the old L-1011's.

[ThomasMore]

If you read the Perry Mason stories, it seems you get the more cynical vision of the law vs. truth question that ColonialMarine's professor espoused. If you watch the TV shows, however, ThomasMore's ideals seem to be supported not only by Perry, but also by Hamilton Burger, the D.A. and usual nemesis.

I have dealt with both kinds of lawyers. Fortunately, the dishonest ones were much more in the minority than you would expect. They seemed to run about 80/20 or 90/10 in favor of honest, hard-working guys. Somewhere between 10 and 20% didn't care or thought it was their duty to go over the line.

Dealing with those guys was unpleasant, but there were ways to handle them: hold fast to principle, call attention to the violations, and don't let yourself get bowled over.

From a client's perspective, the lawyers on both sides always look terrible. Because the lawyer's duty is to highlight the best parts of his client's case, and argue the worst parts of his opponent's case -- while the other lawyer is doing the same for his client -- a lot of mudslinging takes place. As long as it is done while avoiding falsehood, it is in bounds. Deliberate falsehood is out of bounds and prosecutable.

He retired just when Eastern went under. Moved from Atlanta to Florida. I think he flew the old L-1011's.

Hope he was able to get his retirement pension.

The Lockheed L-1011 Tri-Star is a great airplane. Every pilot I know of who flew it absolutely loved it. Well-designed, well-built and flies nicely.

1960

Unfortunately, the plane got Lockheed into a lot of financial trouble. As a result, it was Lockheed's last airliner. It was designed to run on Rolls Royce RB-211 turbofan engines. Unfortunately, RR was then-owned by the British government, it was in financial distress, and it failed to deliver the engines. You can't deliver a plane without engines, and that ran Lockheed into bankruptcy.

Meanwhile, McDonnell Douglas had a competing model ready for sale, the DC-10. The -10 was designed to run on GE CF-6 engines, and Pratt & Whitney JT-9D engines could be substituted. While Lockheed waited for Rolls Royce to deliver the engines, MacDac ran away with the market. In North America alone, United, American, Northwest, Continental, Western Airlines, National Airlines, CP Air, Federal Express, Mexicana, Overseas National, and Aloha all bought the DC-10.

1961 1962 1966

By the time Rolls Royce got its act together and started delivering engines to Lockheed, the only North American airlines still willing to accept the L-1011 were TWA, Eastern, Pan Am, Delta, Air Canada, Hawaiian, and BWIA.

Even today, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the plane. ATA still uses them for military charters.

Most airlines have retired them only because technology advancement makes newer airplanes much more fuel-efficient and cost-effective to operate.

1959

[ThomasMore]

I really like Lawyers, but some I just want to knock out.

A man that was sort of a lawyer that I liked was William Wilberforce. I noticed that he was a conservative after thinking about it.

He decided to combine both God and the Law to get rid of slavery. And it actually worked.

A good movie about Wilberforce, William Pitt the Younger, and John Newton is just out on DVD: Amazing Grace (http://www.amazinggracemovie.com/). Definitely worth seeing.

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q6Cv5P9H9qU&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q6Cv5P9H9qU&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

[TeenageRepublican]

That's how I found out about him. I walked in to that movie theater thinking this movie is going to be stupid but instead I was blown away. This guy was the perfect example of what a good Christian should be.

[ThomasMore]

Here is some info. on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Newton_j.jpg John Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newton)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pitt_the_Younger.jpg William Pitt the Younger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_younger)

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:William_wilberforce.jpg William Wilberforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce)

Chuck Colson established the Wilberforce Forum as a Christian think tank. its goal is "...to help Christians approach life with a biblical worldview so that they can in turn shape culture from a biblical perspective. Using the talents of leading Christian thinkers and writers, we seek to help Christians think and live Christianly not only in church and family circles, but also in the public square."

Wilberforce Forum (http://www.wilberforce.org/site_hmpg.asp).

[Timberwolf]

This whole matter stinks.
Two days later, on Feb. 7, Logan was arrested and, along with Hope, charged with robbery and murder in the McDonald's case, based on the testimony of witnesses who said he shotgunned Wycliffe.

The ink was barely dry on the charges when, on Feb. 9, Chicago police officers William Fahey and Richard O'Brien were shot to death near 8500 S. Morgan St. Their guns were taken. The crime triggered a massive search for Andrew Wilson and his brother, Jackie.
Some freaking common sense should've made the PD think, "Wow, maybe we got the WRONG guys..."

On Feb. 13, police raided a beauty parlor where they thought Andrew Wilson had been hiding. While they did not find Wilson, they did find the revolvers belonging to Fahey and O'Brien, as well as a shotgun. Firearms tests linked the shotgun to a shotgun shell found at the McDonald's restaurant, according to court records.
Now, the PD ought to KNOW they've got the WRONG guys!!!

But with two men already charged in the McDonald's shootings, which witnesses said involved only two gunmen, authorities never charged Wilson in that case.
...and the attorney-client privilege could be properly circumvented by those attorneys saying, "Look at the evidence again".

Besides, their client was already serving a LIFE SENTENCE!!! WTF was gonna happen? He might get another one? Yeah, the death penalty was involved...gosh, never heard of "plea bargain"?

Unbelievable.

[ThomasMore]

This whole matter stinks.

Some freaking common sense should've made the PD think, "Wow, maybe we got the WRONG guys..."

Now, the PD ought to KNOW they've got the WRONG guys!!!

On its best days, the Chicago PD can be pretty good. But there are a lot of cops and detectives who don't care, and a lot more who are corrupt.

...and the attorney-client privilege could be properly circumvented by those attorneys saying, "Look at the evidence again".

See my post #5. (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=629697&postcount=5) I alluded to that.


Besides, their client was already serving a LIFE SENTENCE!!! WTF was gonna happen? He might get another one? Yeah, the death penalty was involved...gosh, never heard of "plea bargain"?

Unbelievable.

Agreed, but the attorneys can only ask their client to agree. If he says "no," they don't have authority to waive attorney-client privilege.

One additional thought. The defendant might have been serving a life sentence, but the additional killing might have made him eligible for the death penalty. No doubt the man deserved it, but the lawyer's job is to defend his client. By all means, ask him for permission to disclose the info, but when the answer is "no," the lawyer finds his options limited.

TW, your comment on going to the judge and saying "look again" is about as far as you can go.

But a lawyer has to be careful that by doing so, he doesn't turn his own client into a target of the investigation if his client has not waived his privilege.

[TeenageRepublican]

Here is some info. on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Newton_j.jpg John Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newton)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pitt_the_Younger.jpg William Pitt the Younger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_younger)

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:William_wilberforce.jpg William Wilberforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce)

Chuck Colson established the Wilberforce Forum as a Christian think tank. its goal is "...to help Christians approach life with a biblical worldview so that they can in turn shape culture from a biblical perspective. Using the talents of leading Christian thinkers and writers, we seek to help Christians think and live Christianly not only in church and family circles, but also in the public square."

Wilberforce Forum (http://www.wilberforce.org/site_hmpg.asp).

Yes, my dad has a huge book collection and he had 2 or 3 books on John Newton and William Wilberforce that I've studied. It's amazing how narrow-minded people were back then.
John Newton is another great example of a Christian. He was a slave-trading Atheist and when his ship was about to sink he converted to Christianity and came out alive. That's were he got the inspiration for Amazing Grace.

[ThomasMore]

I can offer one minor example from my own experience. I practiced civil law (lawsuits), not criminal law. But in both civil and criminal law, an attorney owes complete allegiance to his client, within the bounds of the law.

I often dealt with injured employees in disputed Workers' Compensation cases. I represented the employers.

As part of the practice, in addition to the reviewing evidence from treating physicians' records, both parties would often hire independent physicians to evaluate an employee's injuries and current condition.

Some of these physicians were known to provide evaluations consistent with whatever the lawyer wanted them to say. Such doctors reasoned that their future as consulting physicians depended on satisfying the lawyers who hired them. Such doctors could sometimes be shown at hearing to be one-sided and not credible.

Other doctors were truly independent and would provide evaluations consistent with what they really found. The danger, from a litigation stance, is that such a doctor could return a report damaging to your case. But you have the advantage of knowing that it is a competent physician's honest opinion. In addition, it is easier to defend a doctor's reputation at hearing when he doesn't always support your side.

I preferred to hire the latter, physicians who would provide honest evaluations of a patient's condition, and who could more easily be defended at trial.

I was involved in a medium-sized case (somewhere between $50,000 and $200,000 in potential damages to my client), and it had been necessary to obtain evaluations from consulting physicians. My client had a good circumstantial case that the employee was exaggerating his injuries. But the treating physician reported that the employee was, indeed, seriously injured. My client and I both believed that the treating physician's assessment didn't pass the smell test.

The employee's lawyer sent his client to another doctor for evaluation. That doctor issued a report supporting the treating physician's assessment.

We hired a physician with a good reputation for honesty, but who also frequently picked up on fraud or exaggeration. We required the employee to appear for evaluation. We received the doctor's report. It was a broadside to our case. My client didn't agree with it, and I didn't agree with it. But now we had not one, but three doctors corroborating the employee's version of his injuries.

---

I also had an ethical dilemma, albeit a minor one.

---

Lawyers have no duty to provide medical evaluation reports to opposing counsel. Under Illinois WC law, lawyer could theoretically present the doctor's report at trial for the first time without prior notice to the other lawyer, or even choose not to present the report at all. Of course, the employee had to visit the doctor we chose -- so there is no hiding the fact that the evaluation took place.

Lawyers could, if they wanted to, issue a subpoena for the report each time a patient saw a doctor. This would be very expensive and time-consuming, and those costs and attorney's fees would get passed on to both clients.

So, in the interest of saving both time and clients' money on both sides, lawyers generally share the evaluating reports freely with each other when they are received -- a consulting physician's report will almost always provide SOME support for the client who hired him, so there is almost never a problem with doing so. Opposing counsel and I had agreed in advance to do this.

---

I have just received a report that all but sinks my client's case. Do I have a duty, in the interest of making it easy for the other lawyer, to give him information that will likely cost my client a lot of money? If he is a competent attorney at all (and I already knew that he was both highly skilled and a gentleman), he could always get the report by subpoena.

On the other hand, my opponent and I had already come to an agreement to share reports, and he had provided me his. I had already given him my word that I would do the same. At this point, what was usually routine suddenly looked unwise.

There was only one thing I could do. I waited for my opponent to call for the report. When he asked me for it, I said, "I'm sorry. I know what I promised, but I can't share it with you." His answer was the obvious one: "You know I could always subpoena it." My answer: "I am genuinely sorry. You will have to decide what you want to do."

Now it was obvious to him that there was a reason I wasn't giving him the report. It was also only a matter of time before the subpoena was issued.

My opponent issued the subpoena to the doctor, who then produced the report to him.

Did my refusal to hand over the report change the outcome? Not in the slightest. But as a matter of my ethical duty to my client, I couldn't just hand it over for convenience's sake.

[Rhino]

I haven't flown in a plane at all...

*Silence, walks away...*http://www.youngeagles.org/

Contact a chapter near you.

[TeenageRepublican]

Rhino, I'm going flying to my sister's wedding on the East Coast in May, so don't worry. Maybe I'll bump in to a few freecers...

[Rhino]

Yeah, but most Young Eagles pilots actually let you fly the plane. Whole lot better than being an airline passenger.

[federalisthoosier]

The cynics rule the day. They have built up an immunity to any kool-aid.

Only the cynics have reached in and grabbed hold of the bowels of truth.

[MaximumSam]

While telling the truth is certainly important, the attorneys also explicitly or implicitly told their client that whatever he told them would be kept secret. It would therefore be dishonest for them to tell his secrets to someone else.

[ThomasMore]

Sammie! Long time no see!

[MaximumSam]

Hey! It has been a while. But now I'm a certified lawyer, so I figure I can add to Legal Easgles discussion from time to time ;)

[Rhino]

SAM!!!!!!

Where you been???

[RogerFGay]

Good men must not obey the laws too well.

---- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Politics, Essays, Second Series [1844]