Inmate’s Freedom Hinges on Lawyers’ Revelation That Dead Client Killed Guard in ‘82

Legal Ethics

Inmate’s Freedom Hinges on Lawyers’ Revelation That Dead Client Killed Guard in ‘82

Posted Jan 22, 2008, 01:32 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

Almost 26 years ago, as two Chicago public defenders were representing a client accused of murdering two police officers, their case suddenly got a lot tougher.

A lawyer defending another man accused of murdering a security guard in an unrelated case told the two PDs that his client said that their client, Andrew Wilson, was guilty of the security guard's murder, too. And, when Dave Coventry and Jamie Kunz confronted Wilson, he admitted the accusation was true, reports the Chicago Tribune.

"He kind of chuckled over the fact that someone else was charged with something he did," recalls Coventry, now 64. However, he said that his two lawyers could reveal the truth after his death.

Because the two PDs were representing Wilson, attorney-client privilege applied and they couldn't ethically tell anyone else about his admitted role in the January 1982 killing on Chicago's far south side. However, they wrote down the details in a notarized affidavit and locked it in a metal box. Last week, after Wilson's death of natural causes in November, as he was serving a life sentence for the police officers' murders, Coventry and Kunz testified in court about their client's confession to them.

That sets the stage for the potential release of Alton Logan, 54, who was convicted of the security guard's murder based on witness testimony.

Both lawyers say it has been difficult knowing for decades that an innocent man was in prison, while they had no choice but to keep their client's secret.

Now that the truth has come out, "it was a relief," says Kunz, 70. "Oh my God, I have been wanting this. I have considered this to be the truth. I have been wanting this to come out for years. I don't know anything about Alton Logan. It hurts to know somebody is in prison all these years and is innocent."

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by That's LAME - 8 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 36 minutes ago

And that’s why I don’t deal in criminals.
Posted by Ranger Dave - 8 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 36 minutes ago

And THIS is why lawyers have reputations as dirtbags.
Posted by CJT - 8 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 11 minutes ago

Dirtbags? It’s called an ethical duty to a client. Perhaps the law should change to make exceptions if an innocent person is in jail. But of course that would be Congressmen… dirtbags.
Posted by DGS - 8 months, 2 weeks, 16 hours, 50 minutes ago

Ethics? Pretty sketchy notion of ethics to leave a man you know to be innocent in prison.

Aren’t most legislators...lawyers?
Posted by A - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 19 hours, 32 minutes ago

I’ve heard of these cases. I think it is absolutely sickening that our code of “ethics” makes it “wrong” to reveal such a confession--and make it “right” to allow an innocent person to rot in prison for 24 years…

I’d rather be disbarred and take a new job than know that my actions (or omissions) resulted in an innocent person rotting in prison for 24 years. Does that make be unethical?
Posted by CH - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 18 hours, 41 minutes ago

I agree with A. When one weighs the consequences of revealing v. not revealing the truth in this case, it would be hard to conclude that the irrevocable harm inflicted upon the innocent man--not to mention the emotional toll taken on the attorneys who kept this terrible secret--justified the preservation of A/C confidentiality. While the rules are intended to embody certain ethical principles, the consequences here of choosing confidentiality over truth and justice are simply too dire. I would spill the beans and accept the “punishment” which would be much easier to take than having to live with the knowledge that I was holding back facts that could free an innocent man, even if the esteemed Bar would back me up. (And if I DID decide to adhere to my client’s wishes, I certainly wouldn’t be talking about it in the press.)
Posted by LH - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 46 minutes ago

Wait a minute. If the innocent man’s attorney was aware of the guilt of this other man, why wasn’t this information introduced during his case? Why weren’t the police questioning the man who confessed? Seems like we’re missing some info here…
Posted by BIGLAW 1ST YEAR - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 40 minutes ago

LH, get a clue. Read your PR book and you will figure out the answer.

Do you people really believe that Logan is innocent? The alleged confession came from a criminal, I hardly think that has any indicia of reliability. He MIGHT be innocent, but don’t jump to conclusions.

Moreover, this confidentiality rule is about incentives. If the rule wasn’t in place Wilson probably wouldn’t have told anybody and Logan would rot in prison his whole life. Things are better under our system.
Posted by LH - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 37 minutes ago

Biglaw - you’re missing the point. If I’m representing someone and they tell me some other guy did it, I’m going to do my best to get the investigation turned on the other guy. There’s no info here to suggest whether this happened or not.
Posted by A - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 26 minutes ago

BIGLAW: you make a good point as to whether the confession should be trusted.

I would suggest that since his confession convinced his attorneys to the extent that they signed an affidavit and held onto it for 24 years, and since the attorneys had been tipped off by a third convinced attorney whose client had ratted out the confessor, the confession is a little more trustworthy than just the typical “I did it.”
Posted by BIGLAW 1ST YEAR - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 22 minutes ago

LH, I respectfully disagree and believe you are still missing the point. As an attorney, you have an ethical obligation to not reveal client confidences. Your “best” to get the other guy off is doing nothing and telling no one, because if you did anything you would most likely get disbarred.

The article clearly suggests that the public defenders did not do anything because it says they followed the attorney-client privilege rule.

Didn’t you read that case just like this in PR?

A, I agree with you but remember, Logan was convicted in a fair trial. We must give some deference to the integrity of our legal system.
Posted by XL - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 20 minutes ago

LH: The “innocent” man’s attorney did not tell the attorneys, it was a third party whose client was obviously involved with the dead guy.

BIGLAW: It’s considered rude to tell someone to “get a clue.” Many posters here are attorneys, not law students--regardless, a little respect is always in order (and good practice for when you are a professional).
Posted by A - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 17 minutes ago

I don’t give deference to a system run by people who believe it is better to stay quiet “because if you did anything you would most likely get disbarred.”

First of all, that’s not ethical; that’s rubbish. Conforming with rules because “they said so” is not ethics.

Secondly, I don’t think the bar would disbar you in such a case--we don’t like bad press.
Posted by Tropicana - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 1 minute ago

The thought that leapt to my mind reading this article is why those two PD’s couldn’t convince their client to confess openly… Remember, the article says that he died serving a life sentence. What would it matter to him if he was convicted of the murder of the security guard as well?

And we should definitely not be giving excessive deference to a conviction based (apparently) on witness testimony rather than physical evidence. We all know the degree to which eye witness testimony can be unreliable. And whether or not the admission came from a criminal or not, you’ve got to remember that there was no benefit to the criminal to admit to the crime at all. When there’s no self-interest motivation, his status as a criminal has little bearing on the reliability of that admission. He certainly didn’t have any particular reason to trust that those two PD’s wouldn’t do as some of you have suggested and risk disbarment by revealing their client’s admission.
Posted by Mike - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 30 minutes ago

I don’t think the issue for the public defenders was fear of disbarment.

This article clearly deomonstrates the old adage that hard cases make bad law. The case is so hard because the attorney client privilege is rightfully considered to be, for the most part, inviolate. It is necessary for it to remain that way for it to encourage attorney client confidence, even in the face of bad facts and hard choices, and the overwhlemng need for information. If these poor public defenders were permitted to reveal the confidence, what happens next time when, maybe its not about an innocent man sitting in jail, but a parent who needs to know the wherabouts of their murdered child’s corpse or the investigation that needs to find a kidnapped child or perhaps a murder case that the police just can’t crack?

The attorney client privilege serves a far greater purpose than any one case.

Incidentally we are not the only profesion that faces such ethical dilemmas. Consider military combat ethics - an area rife with hard choices and startlingly difficult required actions.
Posted by Seamus - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 29 minutes ago

It’s interesting that the rules of “ethics” allow an attorney to reveal his client’s confidence where necessary to collect his bill ("to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client,"), but don’t permit him to reveal those confidence to save an innocent man from imprisonment.
Posted by JS - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 4 minutes ago

The two public defenders should have learned NOT to ask questions that they don’t want the answers to. WHat did they expect to do with the answer to their question? Thier client wasn’t on trial for this murder, they just wanted to know if it was true. They put themselves in a sticky eithical delimma by asking thier client about an unrelated criminal accusation.
Posted by JTB - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 41 minutes ago

Would it have been ethically permissible for the two public defenders to “hire” another attorney to whom they could have revealed this information without revealing their client’s identity. Thereafter, that attorney could have approached the state and/or the innocent convicted attorneys and, all without revealing the two public defenders (much less their client), and attempted to work something out (e.g., no use of the real perpetrators statement or any “fruit” arising from that statement). Assuming it was ethical, do you think it would have made any practical difference?
Posted by Law Student in Madison - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 37 minutes ago

Seamus, the PR rules allow that when a client is suing the lawyer claiming that the lawyer did something wrong. If the lawyer is not allowed to disclose A/C communications, how will he defend himself?
Posted by Joseph Lite - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 17 minutes ago

Why not allow such a confession as evidence in exoneration, but exclude it from prosecution? Far worse for an innocent man to be in prison that for a guilty one to go unpunished for a while.
Posted by Doneil - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 55 minutes ago

This is also a Catch-22 situation. If confessions like these could be revealed by an attorney, there probably wouldn’t any confessions.
Posted by Kris - 8 months, 1 week, 5 days, 8 hours, 50 minutes ago

The PD’s should not have revealed the confession, period. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I think even I know that the PD’s should not have asked their client if he killed anyone especially someone not involved in the case. The suggestion that they should have been willing to suffer the consequences, presumed to be disbarrment, is flawed. A/C confidentiality is a fundamental component of our legal system. The fact that you might be willing to suffer the consequences does not make it OK to violate that trust. I do understand how horrible the thought of an innocent person in prison is but I also hope that if I am ever in need of the services of a criminal attorney that I can count on his/her respect of A/C confidentiality.
Posted by Seamus - 8 months, 1 week, 4 days, 10 hours, 15 minutes ago

Law Student in Madison asks “Seamus, the PR rules allow that when a client is suing the lawyer claiming that the lawyer did something wrong. If the lawyer is not allowed to disclose A/C communications, how will he defend himself?” The rules permit a lawyer to disclose client confidences, not only to defend himself, but also to collect his bill. But even looking at the issue of the lawyer’s defending himself against, why is the lawyer’s ability to save himself from lawsuit more important than the client’s confidences, but the freedom of an innocent man isn’t?
Posted by Stef - 8 months, 1 week, 2 days, 5 hours, 10 minutes ago

Anyone who is critical of these PD’s for keeping this secret or revealing it after the death of their client has obviously never practiced criminal law. They did the right thing. They protected their client and got his permission before they broke their silence. It seems painful, but this is the way the system works.
Posted by RST - 8 months, 6 days, 22 hours, 51 minutes ago

To Stef, “this is the way the system works” seems like a hollow reason to let someone rot in prison. There have been many “systems” over the centuries… just because they were written down and functioning didn’t always mean they “worked”. The best point (only point really) I can think of for maintaining this particular confidence is that it likely wouldn’t have been revealed at all save for the fact that the A/C privilege existed in the first place. That said, I’d still break that confidence under these facts as I am a human being first, attorney second. My license would be cold comfort knowing an innocent man was sitting in prison for decades.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Legal Ethics