芝加哥一名男子冤枉26年監獄刑期,而他的兩名律師深知他是無罪的,而又不能向警方透露,蓋因另一名坦白的罪犯也是他們的顧客。

來源: 潛水員大爺 2014-10-14 12:27:10 [] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (4280 bytes)

芝加哥一名男子冤枉26年監獄刑期,而他的兩名律師深知他是無罪的,而又不能向警方透露,蓋因另一名坦白的罪犯也是他們的顧客。
www.cbsnews.com/news/26-year-secret-kept-innocent-man-in-prison/
This story was originally broadcast on March 9, 2008. It was updated on May 23, 2008.

This is a story about an innocent man who languished in prison for 26 years while two attorneys who knew he was innocent stayed silent. As correspondent Bob Simon reported earlier this year, they did so because they felt they had no choice.

Alton Logan was convicted of killing a security guard at a McDonald's in Chicago in 1982. Police arrested him after a tip and got three eyewitnesses to identify him. Logan, his mother and brother all testified he was at home asleep when the murder occurred. But a jury found him guilty of first degree murder.

Now new evidence reveals that Logan did not commit that murder, something that was not new to those two attorneys, who knew it all along but say they couldn't speak out until now.

Alton Logan's story cuts to the core of America's justice system.
 



Simon met Alton Logan in prison, where he's spent almost half of his life.

Asked if he still counts the months and days, Logan told Simon, "There's no need to count the months and the days. Just count the years."

Logan said that during the first five or six years he was "consumed" by anger. "Then I come to the realization that 'Why be angry over something you can't control?'"

Logan, who maintains he didn't commit the murder, thought they were "crazy" when he was arrested for the crime.

Attorneys Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz knew Logan had good reason to think that, because they knew he was innocent. And they knew that because their client, Andrew Wilson, who they were defending for killing two policemen, confessed to them that he had also killed the security guard at McDonald's - the crime Logan was charged with.

"We got information that Wilson was the guy and not Alton Logan. So we went over to the jail immediately almost and said, 'Is that true? Was that you?' And he said, 'Yep it was me,'" Kunz recalled.

"He just about hugged himself and smiled. I mean he was kind of gleeful about it. It was a very strange response," Kunz said, recalling how Wilson had reacted.

"How did you interpret that response?" Simon asked.

"That it was true and that he was tickled pink," Kunz said.

"He was pleased that the wrong guy had been charged. It was like a game and he'd gotten away with something. But there was just no doubt whatsoever that it was true. I mean I said, 'It was you with the shotgun-you killed the guy?' And he said, 'Yes,' and then he giggled," Coventry added.

The problem was the killer was their client. So, legally, they had to keep his secret even though an innocent man was about to be tried for murder.

"I know a lot of people who would say, 'Hey if the guy's innocent you've got to say so. You can't let him rot because of that,'" Simon remarked.

"Well, the vast majority of the public apparently believes that, but if you check with attorneys or ethics committees or you know anybody who knows the rules of conduct for attorneys, it's very, very clear-it's not morally clear-but we're in a position to where we have to maintain client confidentiality, just as a priest would or a doctor would. It's just a requirement of the law. The system wouldn't work without it," Coventry explained.

So that was the dilemma. They couldn't speak out, they felt, but how could they remain silent?


 

所有跟帖: 

這種案子在美國過去發生頻繁,到2014年全美共有1383名罪犯因DNA重新驗證而無罪釋放。包括不少死刑犯(Innocence P -潛水員大爺- 給 潛水員大爺 發送悄悄話 潛水員大爺 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 12:34:28

美國法律係統的核心是按既定程序和規則辦,程序決定一切,所有有錢請好律師才能充分利用程序給於的權利。 -FHZM- 給 FHZM 發送悄悄話 FHZM 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 12:40:30

這裏就有程序正義和社會正義的問題,也有政治上正確和事實上正確的問題,當然美國法律是如果樹有毒,果子也有毒,程序不當,結果不能用, -潛水員大爺- 給 潛水員大爺 發送悄悄話 潛水員大爺 的博客首頁 (261 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 12:48:50

這個時候走程序的缺點就顯現無誤 -勿來三- 給 勿來三 發送悄悄話 勿來三 的博客首頁 (50 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:02:37

這個是兩難境地,一方麵,attorney client privilege是律師存在的根本基礎,沒這一點,律師這行業沒法存在,如 -潛水員大爺- 給 潛水員大爺 發送悄悄話 潛水員大爺 的博客首頁 (322 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:11:26

有兩種不同觀念:我們是追求一次判例的公平,還是追求一種機製的公平 -留學美國- 給 留學美國 發送悄悄話 (398 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:06:58

innocence project到2014年有1383人無罪釋放,不是一兩個判例那麽簡單, -潛水員大爺- 給 潛水員大爺 發送悄悄話 潛水員大爺 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:14:43

Since 1989, 318 people in 38 states have been exonerated through -蒙得- 給 蒙得 發送悄悄話 蒙得 的博客首頁 (274 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:21:17

318人在38州被判有罪後被innocence project證明無罪。也不一定就是蹲了很久監獄以後。嗬嗬。 -蒙得- 給 蒙得 發送悄悄話 蒙得 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:27:18

As of June 2014, 316 people previously convicted of serious crim -潛水員大爺- 給 潛水員大爺 發送悄悄話 潛水員大爺 的博客首頁 (641 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:27:55

中國糾正冤假錯案 去年825人被宣告無罪 -蒙得- 給 蒙得 發送悄悄話 蒙得 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:35:14

薄書記算冤假錯案嗎?由此關聯的可能都不止八百多人吧? -留學美國- 給 留學美國 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:38:12

那些不算。嗬嗬。一年800多也不少了。美國25多年才一千多。 -蒙得- 給 蒙得 發送悄悄話 蒙得 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:40:04

中國現代意義的律師行業是80年代中期才開始,美現有司法體係搞了至少200多年吧 慢慢來吧, -潛水員大爺- 給 潛水員大爺 發送悄悄話 潛水員大爺 的博客首頁 (255 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 13:53:10

真正現代意義的律師到今天還沒有 -golflover- 給 golflover 發送悄悄話 (58 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 14:31:17

絕對是。 -pta- 給 pta 發送悄悄話 pta 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 14:55:28

attorney client privilege也不是沒有限製的,如果談話內容涉及進行中的犯罪行為,律師,醫生,牧師都有責任向 -望自遠方- 給 望自遠方 發送悄悄話 望自遠方 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 15:23:11

The crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when com -潛水員大爺- 給 潛水員大爺 發送悄悄話 潛水員大爺 的博客首頁 (301 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 15:39:17

這個Case隻能是說明檢方和警方辦案不力,製度也就到這裏了。 -望自遠方- 給 望自遠方 發送悄悄話 望自遠方 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 15:50:31

美國不準醫生 . 律師 . 教師等職業的 人士擔任陪審員,這就排除了許多有知識有才能的人。再有 -謝謝你-- 給 謝謝你- 發送悄悄話 (360 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 15:44:11

沒聽說陪審團有職業限製。你這個哪來的? -望自遠方- 給 望自遠方 發送悄悄話 望自遠方 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 15:48:44

你查一下,允其是在篩選的吋候一般不予考慮,因為他們有職業傾向性比較主觀,而且有影響其它陪審團員判斷的傾向。。 -謝謝你-- 給 謝謝你- 發送悄悄話 (30 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 15:57:20

不Make Sense。 陪審團是義務也是權力,不可能以行業作為篩選標準。 -望自遠方- 給 望自遠方 發送悄悄話 望自遠方 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 16:06:11

候選人先由法官篩選,經過法官篩選後的候選人,雙方律師再進行篩選,他們不會選個律師職業的來怱悠其它陪審團員的 -謝謝你-- 給 謝謝你- 發送悄悄話 (129 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 16:24:31

陪審團的職責範圍是有很嚴格的限製,要求他們隻能對事實作出判定,不能就法律問題發表意見。因為在事實認定上,不需要專業知識和經驗的領 -謝謝你-- 給 謝謝你- 發送悄悄話 (99 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 16:06:46

我找不到任何資料支持你的說法,你給找找吧,你既然說有這回事,一定能找到資料的。 -望自遠方- 給 望自遠方 發送悄悄話 望自遠方 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 16:21:04

www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/jury_duty/info/brochure.pdf - The Jury A -謝謝你-- 給 謝謝你- 發送悄悄話 (173 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 16:37:45

Do not give me wrong.. 我認為美國司法程序是最民主,最powerful 的。隻是說法製沒有絕對的公平,也有 -謝謝你-- 給 謝謝你- 發送悄悄話 (21 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 16:46:33

我想我要是哪天犯事了,我這東方人的麵孔,命運就掌握在這些和我不同麵孔的十二個陪審團手裏了 -謝謝你-- 給 謝謝你- 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 16:50:12

在法律麵前人人平等方麵,美國還是最好的。盡管有不盡人意的地方, -謝謝你-- 給 謝謝你- 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 10/14/2014 postreply 18:21:20

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”