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

[Taximom]

Also, wasn't there a big case similar to this a few years ago? I thought it involved a female lawyer that was struggling with an issue like this. I don't remember how it turned out. Does anyone remember something like that? It was on national news....

 

[Masterj]

I think it is very sad to see the criticism of the lawyers when it is obvious that the police really botched this case.

 

[southcitymom]

I think it is very sad to see the criticism of the lawyers when it is obvious that the police really botched this case.

I am with you on this point, Masterj.

A criminal defense attorney must think long and hard about the obligations legally required of him/her before choosing that professional route. I have an enormous amount of respect for attorneys in general and for the confidentiality they provide in particular.

LE certainly did botch this case.

 

[believe09]

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.

I think they did it through evidence disclosure/discovery to the defense. That was instantly what came to mind for me when I first read this.

 

[Taximom]

:clap: :clap:

I think it is very sad to see the criticism of the lawyers when it is obvious that the police really botched this case.

 

[Logger]

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.

Therapists have limited confidentiality. If you have murdered some one or say you are planning on it, or if you are going to do harm to yourself, a therapist
can and are mandated to intervene.

 

[Salem]

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.

SCM - I agree that the attorney/client relationship is crucial. That means the attorneys in the know have to find a "creative" way of providing a "reasonable doubt" without destroying that confidentiality or incriminating their client. How would that be done? I don't know but I would venture to say every case would be unique. There is absolutely nothing in our justice system (that I know about, anyway) that says an attorney must "get" his client off. I believe it says that the attorney must provide the "best" defense possible so that their client is given a fair and impartial trial. It seems to me that somehow these attorneys could have slipped the other defense attorney some kind of information that could have been used to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. I could be wrong....... but I wonder if they even tried.

Obviously - I would never make a good defense attorney:crazy:

Salem

 

[j2mirish]

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 guess we put innocent people in prison when the jury doest do so good, or our judicial system doesnt allow certain things in a trial, but you always think our system is the best----:crazy: ( had to throw that in )
I thought about a guy confessing to something he didnt do too-I do understand needing to have the client/privelage also----
this is just hard to comprehend though- when someone spent that much time in prison, and an attorney KNEW he was innocent because his own client confessed...

 

[southcitymom]

SCM - I agree that the attorney/client relationship is crucial. That means the attorneys in the know have to find a "creative" way of providing a "reasonable doubt" without destroying that confidentiality or incriminating their client. How would that be done? I don't know but I would venture to say every case would be unique. There is absolutely nothing in our justice system (that I know about, anyway) that says an attorney must "get" his client off. I believe it says that the attorney must provide the "best" defense possible so that their client is given a fair and impartial trial. It seems to me that somehow these attorneys could have slipped the other defense attorney some kind of information that could have been used to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. I could be wrong....... but I wonder if they even tried.

Obviously - I would never make a good defense attorney:crazy:

Salem

That cracked me up, salem!!

Attorneys must zealously represent their client's interests and are legally bound by strict ethics - one of which is this TOTAL confidentiality thing. I don't think these attorneys would have been doing that had they "subtly" slipped another attorney info on their client's guilt. JMO. The article seems to indicate that these attorneys did feel terrible, but felt bound by the ethics of the Bar.

It also sounds like the guy who went to prison for life was railroaded a bit. The article's a little confusing, but that's what I took from it.

 

[southcitymom]

Therapists have limited confidentiality. If you have murdered some one or say you are planning on it, or if you are going to do harm to yourself, a therapist
can and are mandated to intervene.

This is a terrific point, Logger - therapists, teachers, daycare workers, medical workers, mediators (which I am currently studying to be certified in) are bound by a Georgia code (and I'm sure other states have a similar laws on the books) that states they must report if someone is a danger to themselves or others or a child may be in danger.

I did think of this when I was posting that I didn't agree with limited attorney confidentiality. I still don't agree with limited attorney confidentiality, but I'm not exactly sure hown to verbalize why, so I'll keep working on that. I usually don;t find myself at a loss for words regarding many subjects!! LOL!

 

[Taximom]

(snipped)It also sounds like the guy who went to prison for life was railroaded a bit. The article's a little confusing, but that's what I took from it.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that was confused by that article. I had to start writing last names down to keep it all straight! :doh:

I wish I could remember the facts of that other "famous" attorney-client privilege case....

 

[KansasCutie]

how awful for that innocent man.

I dont think i want to be a defense attorney anymore....i would have blabbed that the minute the real murderer confessed!

 

[southcitymom]

I guess we put innocent people in prison when the jury doest do so good, or our judicial system doesnt allow certain things in a trial, but you always think our system is the best----:crazy: ( had to throw that in )
I thought about a guy confessing to something he didnt do too-I do understand needing to have the client/privelage also----
this is just hard to comprehend though- when someone spent that much time in prison, and an attorney KNEW he was innocent because his own client confessed...

Fair enough, friend! :blowkiss: But let me clarify - I don't think our system is always right or that it always works for the best in every specific instance; but overall, I just don't know of a better one and I have a tremendous amount of respect for our legal system. Still, my glasses aren't so rose-colored that I can't see reality - I know their are times when things go terribly awry - this situation is a case in point!!

Answer me this, though. You say this attorney KNEW this man was innocent because his own client confessed, but what this attorney really knew was that his client had confessed - not that the confession was 100% true and accurate. Clients lie to their attorneys all the time. You might think I am splitting hairs, but I think it's a valid point to consider in all this.

I'd like to think of a way these attorneys could have gotten this confession out there without getting disbarred! There's got to be a creative way, but I'm not coming up with much and I have a pretty tricky mind when I want to!

 

[southcitymom]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that was confused by that article. I had to start writing last names down to keep it all straight! :doh:

I wish I could remember the facts of that other "famous" attorney-client privilege case....

Me too, Taxi - I know this isn't the first time something like this has come up.

I thought the article was hard to follow and had to read it twice and am still a bit confused (but that's a fairly normal state for me!!:crazy: )

 

[CW]

I truly understand each and everyone's point of view, but what is eating at my heart regarding this case is what if it was one of OUR loved one's that was at the wrong place at the wrong time and it happend to one of OUR loved one's as I stated above. We have to face reality in this day in time as my dear attorney friend always told me America has one of the best legal systems in the world,but it's the corruption within that make's our legal system dirty it's all about who we know or how much money we have. JMO

 

[lorann]

There was a TV show supposedly based in Indy that was only on for a couple of seasons - don't know why, I liked it. The last season, "Harm" from JAG was the DA. Anyone remember this? The bad guy on the show - defense attorney, knew his client was guilty. He found a way to let the star of the show, Asst DA, find the proof to convict the bad guy. She was able to convict him without revealing where the info secretly came from. I know - a TV show. We can only hope that perhaps this happens.

 

[Jen_in_Indy]

I understand that they couldn't come right out and say that their client confessed to the crime. But, couldn't they have met with the D.A. or police chief at the time and told them that they really needed to re-examine that gun that was found that was linked to the robbery but police ignored? I don't know....

But I agree that on this one, it was the police who dropped the ball.

 

[Ang50]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that was confused by that article. I had to start writing last names down to keep it all straight! :doh:

I wish I could remember the facts of that other "famous" attorney-client privilege case....

It was about a little girl and where her body was buried. The courts tried to make the attorney reveal the location of the body after the client died, and the attorney refused.

Attorneys get in trouble both ways - when they reveal and when they don't. Recently, a defense attorney revealed a murder confession after the client's death and was disbarred. (Can't remember more facts than this...)

 

[Ang50]

This is a terrific point, Logger - therapists, teachers, daycare workers, medical workers, mediators (which I am currently studying to be certified in) are bound by a Georgia code (and I'm sure other states have a similar laws on the books) that states they must report if someone is a danger to themselves or others or a child may be in danger.

I did think of this when I was posting that I didn't agree with limited attorney confidentiality. I still don't agree with limited attorney confidentiality, but I'm not exactly sure hown to verbalize why, so I'll keep working on that. I usually don;t find myself at a loss for words regarding many subjects!! LOL!

This rule is really narrow w/ regard to attorneys - similar to the rule w/ therapists. It's a different rule than "mandatory reporting" which you mention about children.

Here's the model rules - states tweak them, so they vary...

Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Of Information

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

• (1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
  (2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services;
  (3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services;
  (4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules;
  (5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; or
  (6) to comply with other law or a court order.

 

[Ang50]

Answer me this, though. You say this attorney KNEW this man was innocent because his own client confessed, but what this attorney really knew was that his client had confessed - not that the confession was 100% true and accurate. Clients lie to their attorneys all the time. You might think I am splitting hairs, but I think it's a valid point to consider in all this.

You're absolutely right - that's why attorney-client priviledge is in place. It throws chaos into the system otherwise because roles get confused.

1. Clients lie. If there's a gray area where attorneys have to reveal what clients say, and get in trouble if they don't, the system breaks down. False confessions get reported, attorneys report just to cover their as*, and so on.

2. The police and DA's did not do their jobs. Finding the true criminal is their job. After they found those guns and tested them, and found that they were used in the McDonald's crime, they didn't go any further b/c they had already arrested other people (!).

3. PLUS - the cops beat Wilson (the real killer) and so he got to go free. That really makes me mad. The cops are criminals in this situation too.

4. PLUS - I don't know if this happened, but it is a rule that the DA is required to share exculpatory evidence with the defense. Therefore, the DA was supposed to tell the defense attorney for the innocent guy that they had found another gun. The defense is then supposed to use this information to create reasonable doubt. The defense should be allowed to subpoena other people - like Wilson - to come in to testify.

If defense attorneys are supposed to break priviledge, it's just a shortcut for everyone else to be lazy and not do their jobs. Our system is skewed to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused (and especially on this forum - with crimes regarding kids - we can't stand it!) but this is the reason why. If the accused doesn't have the presumption of innocence, even more innocent people would be convicted.