IL - Lloyd Wickliffe, 35, slain in McDonalds robbery, Chicago, 11 Jan 1982

CW

Former Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
6,204
Reaction score
47
Website
Visit site
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.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-secretjan19,0,3767780.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout
 
This really bothers me. I think there should be a way for defense attorneys to prevent an innocent person going to jail without violating their clients rights. I'm not sure how it would work, but this is so wrong.

I don't think I could have kept a secret like that. That's why I could never make a decent lawyer, as much as I used to think I'd love it.
 
Wrong, Wrong! I could not live with myself keeping a secret like that, so do you think these 2 attorney's have ever felt guilty about this over the years? I could never be a defense attorney. I feel so sorry for this person.
 
Wrong, Wrong! I could not live with myself keeping a secret like that, so do you think these 2 attorney's have ever felt guilty about this over the years? I could never be a defense attorney. I feel so sorry for this person.

Clearly they did-hence the affidavit which is pretty extraordinary in my opinion given the lack of conscience most defense attorneys seem to have, lol!! :)
 
Clearly they did-hence the affidavit which is pretty extraordinary in my opinion given the lack of conscience most defense attorneys seem to have, lol!! :)
except that this is 26 years later, and only because the real murderer died- that if I read correctly is the only reason they came forward-
I can not imagine living with myself, knowing a human being was in prison for life, for something thye did not do- and I knew it, and knew who did it- there has to be another way-
 
I agree - This is very wrong. 26 years is a very long time to pay for someone else's crime. I'm sure there was a way to get this information out without destroying the boundries of the attorney/client relationship. I would say the attorneys just didn't give it enough thought.

Salem
 
I agree - This is very wrong. 26 years is a very long time to pay for someone else's crime. I'm sure there was a way to get this information out without destroying the boundries of the attorney/client relationship. I would say the attorneys just didn't give it enough thought.

Salem
we need an attorney or judge to advise if there is a way to do this- I am sad to say I never thought about the client/attorney privelage going this way- I always thought how wrong it was for an attorney to KNOW their client did something, and werent convicted- I never thought about an attorney knowing their client did it, AND SOMEONE ELSE GETS CONVICTED AND SERVES TIME-- what if this someone else was given the dp and their time was up? ( this is not to open a discussion about the dp-we already have threads for that)
 
This is so wrong. It should be unlawful to knowinging let an innocent man go to jail even if it falls under attorney client privilege. I know this sounds horrible, but even if the actual murderer got a lesser charge it would be better than innocent man going to jail.
 
I agree - This is very wrong. 26 years is a very long time to pay for someone else's crime. I'm sure there was a way to get this information out without destroying the boundries of the attorney/client relationship. I would say the attorneys just didn't give it enough thought.

Salem

How? I can't think of a single solitary way.

ETA: a little off-topic, but is a priest bound to secrecy if a penitent confesses to murder?
 
Didn't we learn in the Stacy Peterson case that if it's not 'confession' then the priest isn't bound to secrecy? (Or not. I'm just asking for those that want to confess to something big and aren't sure. :) )
 
Wilson was already serving Life for his crimes. Did he just not want the death penalty if he told the truth about what he did? What a jerk.
 
Didn't we learn in the Stacy Peterson case that if it's not 'confession' then the priest isn't bound to secrecy? (Or not. I'm just asking for those that want to confess to something big and aren't sure. :) )



I agree it needs to be a confession- I thought that is what scm insinuated
 
this is just so wrong.
can you imagine spending one day in jail for something
you DID NOT DO, I can't, I can't even let myself imagine
what would go through you. TO have NO ONE believe you,
to KNOW that you did not do this. Oh my goodness, that
would be so horrible.
 
Thanks, j2m. I thought so, but wasn't sure. While I hate what happened in this case, the attorney-client confidentiality is crucial. I would not want to see that change.
not even when an innocent man is sentenced to life in prsion or the dp because he is convicted of a crime someone else confesses too? :mad:
 
not even when an innocent man is sentenced to life in prsion or the dp because he is convicted of a crime someone else confesses too? :mad:

I'm wracking my brain, but can't think of a way around it. You can't have limited confidentiality if you want to have effective legal counsel. But I am going to consider this, think on it a while.

Of course, it is gruesome if an innocent man languishes in prison or gets the DP if evidence could exonerate him, but that scenario makes also makes my brain go "why the heck are we putting people in prison for life or giving them the DP if we aren't really really certain?!"

Also, what if the guy who confessed to these attys was lying? I'm not saying that he was - I'm just saying that could happen.
 
I wish I could remember the episode of a Law and Order type show where I think they found a way around this situation. I could be wrong, but it's an interesting topic nonetheless.

I don't know how those lawyers could live their lives everyday, but I understand they have to abide by the law.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
2,181
Total visitors
2,379

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,255
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top