« Cross Bones: Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Finds No Prosecutorial Misconduct Despite Scathing Comments Attacking Kathy Reichs a/k/a Bones In Nun Murder Cold Case | Main | Evidence Laws Turned Upside Down Down Under?: Victorian Government Finally Introduces Evidence Bill, 2008 »
July 14, 2008
Northwestern Colloquy Publishes Final Version of My Essay, Ordeal By Innocence
Today, the Northwestern Colloquy published my essay, Ordeal by Innocence: Why There Should Be a Wrongdul Incarceration/Execution Exception to Attorney-Client Confidentiality. The editors at Northwestern did a great job of editing the piece, resulting in some very positive changes and additions to it since the version I previously posted on SSRN. What I really like about the Colloquy format is that, like a blog, it allows for comments to the essay so that a dialogue about the essay can be continued beyond my initial thoughts. So, if you have anything you would like to write about the essay after reading it, you can post a comment here, and I will be sure to respond promptly.
Once again, here is the abstract for the essay:
"In 1982, Alton Logan was convicted of first degree murder based upon being the trigger man in a robbery gone wrong at a Chicagoland McDonald's. What the jury who convicted Logan did not hear was that another man, Andrew Wilson, confessed to the crime Logan allegedly committed. The problem was that Wilson confessed to his attorneys, public defenders Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, who confirmed with the relevant authorities that they were bound by the rules of professional responsibility not to disclose their client's confession. Coventry and Kunz did prepare an affidavit detailing Wilson's guilt and in fact planned to come forward if Logan were given the death penalty. Ironically, two holdouts on the jury seemingly spared Logan's life by voting against capital punishment, but in fact dealt him the same fate that would befall the affidavit, being locked up (Logan in a prison cell; the affidavit in a lock box). Pained by pangs of guilt, the public defenders convinced Wilson to allow them to reveal his guilt after his death, resulting in Logan's eventual release from prison twenty-six years after he entered.
How does such an injustice occur? Until recently, the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility prohibited an attorney from disclosing client information relating to a completed crime in which the attorney's services were not used, meaning that an attorney could not disclose that his client committed a crime for which another man was charged or convicted. And while the ABA amended Model Rule 1.6(b)(1) in 2002 to permit attorneys to reveal client information to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, the few commentators to address the issue have curtly concluded that this exception would still not apply to the wrongful incarceration scenario presented by the preceding example. Conversely, Massachusetts Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.6(b)(1) permits attorneys to disclose client information to, inter alia, prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another. This article argues that the 25 states which have adopted some form of amended Model Rule 1.6(b)(1) can and should read a similar wrongful incarceration/execution exception into their existing Rules while the remaining 24 states (and the District of Columbia) which have not adopted some form of amended Model Rule 1.6(b)(1) should create such an exception and can do so while causing less violence to the rationales behind attorney-client confidentiality than existing exceptions."
July 14, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Northwestern Colloquy Publishes Final Version of My Essay, Ordeal By Innocence: