Alton Logan's story cuts to the core of the America's justice system. "Well, majority of the public apparently believe 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. In 1982, Alton Logan was convicted of killing a security guard at a Chicago McDonalds. Although the testimony states that Logan was at home when the murder took place, the jury still found him guilty of first degree murder which he was then sentenced to life in prison. The two attorneys, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, who also represented Andrew Wilson for killing two policemen, were told by Wilson himself that he was guilty of killing the security guard at the McDonalds. The two lawyers believed that they were bound by the attorney-client privilege and couldn't release that their client Wilson had …show more content…
The most recently adopted exceptions correlate to what may be called the public policy exceptions, exceptions where the lawyer is permitted to breach confidentiality to protect an interest other than that of the client. The ethical duty of confidentiality juxtaposes here with the law relating to the attorney client privilege. The attorney client privilege is a rule of evidence that is pertinent in judicial proceedings. The ethical duty of confidentiality is an ethical obligation that is far more extensive in scope than the privilege. The two are not interchangeable concepts, although there are many resemblances. Both attorneys were incapable legally without risking their licenses to provide Wilson’s confession upon Logan’s sentencing, due to breach of
The court will likely hold that Andrew Keegan’s (“Mr. Keegan”) actions were a product of a law enforcement officer in influencing his conduct therefore establishing an entrapment defense.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
After two hours of interrogation by the police, Miranda wrote a complete confession, admitting to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl ten days earlier. Alvin Moore was assigned to represent Miranda at his trial which began June 20th, in front of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate. It was pointed out that Miranda had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right to have an attorney present during police questioning. Despite that he had not been informed of his rights, Miranda was convicted, forcing him to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The charges as well as the verdict remained the same. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 1965. Criminal Defense Attorney John Flynn agreed to represent Miranda in Alvin Moore’s stead. The Supreme Court agreed that the written confession was not acceptable evidence because of Ernesto’s ignorance of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the police’s failure to inform him of them. Then state of Arizona re-tried him without the confession but with Twila Hoffman’s testimony. He was still found guilty and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison, but this case set precedence for all other cases of this
Locallo describes the Bridgeport case as being a “heater case”, not only because of the social impact that it will create in the community, but also because of all the media attention it will receive which will influence his possible reelection once his term is over (Courtroom 302, 31). When Frank Caruso Jr. decided that he was going to beat Lenard Clark, an African American boy he created the spark that society needed to get back at the Caruso family for all of the crimes that they got away with in the past. During the past several decades, society has tried to make the Caruso family take responsibility for their crimes, but all those efforts just strengthened the family ties and political positions.
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
Summary of the Case On August 1987, Donald Butler opened a store in Winnipeg, Manitoba, called the “Avenue Boutique”. In this store, Butler sold and rented pornographic publications that were considered “hard core” and sexual paraphernalia. A couple weeks later, the City of Winnipeg Police searched and seized Butler’s sexually explicit materials lawfully. From this, Butler was charged with 173 counts under s. 163 of the Criminal Code. These charges included s. 163(1)(a) which criminalizes the distribution and the possession for distribution of obscene materials, as wells s. 163(2)(a) for selling and exposing obscene material to the public.
This case is about a 15 year old kid, along with a friend, who made an erotic call to a neighbor's house. The alleged incident took place on June 8, 1964 by Gerald Gault and Ronald Lewis. Mrs. Cook, the neighbor, filed a complaint which resulted in Gerald Gault’s arrest. Gerald was indeed on probation for something he had done prior to this incident. The officer who made the arrest did not leave notice for the juvenile's parents and did not endeavor to advise them of their child's arrest, however, they found out about the arrest from Ronald Lewis later.. “After arresting a juvenile, an officer must notify the juvenile's parent or legal guardian regarding: the whereabouts of the child, the nature of the charges, and the police department's planned course of action” (O'Neil, 2010). Gerald’s mother was giving information on when the hearing for her son was after arriving where he was
In the article titled ”Man Denied Parole in a Flagstaff Hotel” the article follows the case of then teenager Jacob Wideman murdering his bunkmate Eric Kane while he slept in his bed at a summer camp hotel in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1986. Jacob was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, the article was written in 2011the year of his first parole hearing. The issue for the readers to decipher in the article is if they believe Jacob who has served the past 25 years in prison should be granted parole and be released from prison. The article gives up to date insight from the parents of both of boys, Jacob who committed the murder, and Eric the victim all leading up to Jacob’s parole hearing. In this paper I will highlight key points from the article while answering key questions to give a better understanding of the trial for myself and for the readers.
... to 360 months in prison. This case was considered ineffective assistance of counsel for one reason, which was counsel prejudice advice to client to reject a plea offer. In order for Cooper to show his Sixth Amendment was violated, he would have to show three things: (1) The ineffective advice, and that the plea offer would have been present to the courts, (2) the courts would have accepted the terms, and (3) the conviction sentence would be less than the actual judgment and sentence imposed. The outcome in this case changed how the plea bargaining system works. Defendants in criminal proceedings have a Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations meaning when the prosecutors offers a plea the defendant is entitled to be there so if he or she rejects the plea they know its actually coming from the defendant and not his attorney.
In one of Law & Order’s “ripped from the headlines” episodes titled “House Counsel,” a juror in a mob trial is found dead. Law enforcement investigates and learns that the mobster tampered with the juror in order to avoid a conviction and then killed him to keep him quiet. The lawyer defending the mobster is a good friend of Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy. Later in the investigation, McCoy discovers that his friend may have played a role in the jury tampering. When he suspects his friend is involved, McCoy sees an opportunity to get the mobster and prosecutes the attorney for the murder to leverage information about the mobster. In the end, the lawyer is convicted and the attorney-client privilege between the lawyer and the mobster is dissolved.
Ethical theories to discuss whether the FBI were correct in attempting to capture and prosecute Mitnick.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Cognitive psychologist, Elizabeth Loftus explains that, in 1970, Edmond D. Jackson was convicted of the murder of a New York bartender. The murder took place while fifty customers scrambled for cover. Loftus stated, “The subsequent investigation focused on four witnesses who looked at numerous mug shots and said one resembled the gunman” (Loftus xi). Later the defendant was convicted solely because these witnesses, who had seen the gunman in the bar for only a few seconds, had identified him. While in prison, Jackson prayed and prayed for his release–prayers which were not answered for nearly eight years. In August of 1978, the United States Court of Appeals set aside Jackson’s conviction. With great appreciation, Loftus explained that, “The court found that the eyewitness testimony presented by the prosecution was so tainted by the suggestive procedures of the police investigators that its admission into evidence against Jackson constituted a denial of due process” (Loftus xi).
The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the case Washington vs. Texas, where Jackie Washington was tried for murder. A state court ruled that Washington could not have an accomplice in the crime testify in his defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s refusal to allow the defendant a capable witness violated the 6th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court overruled the court’s c...
To show an unbiased and educated examination of the five cases involving questionable interrogations, I will give information on the crime that occurred, the problems with the interrogations and other evidence, who is at fault for problems within the case, how the defendant was cleared (if he was), and the compensation and future changes that were a direct response to these cases provided that they occurred or are in the process of occurring. The five cases that I will examine involve the accused: George Allen, Hunter Johnson, Peter Reilly, Michael Crowe, and Reggie Clemons. Each case is significantly different yet showcases many acts of injustice within the justice system.