That is pure bull-shit. If a man confesses to a crime he should be punished. Thoes bottom feeders should feel real good knowing an innocent man was made to pay for something he hadn't done. What a f*****g system.

"We're both getting on in years," Kunz said. "We ought to do something with that affidavit to make sure it's not wasted in case we both leave this good Earth."
* * * * *

Oh, you will. And I doubt the Almighty will be sympathetic to your law school pedigrees and your insistence on attorney-client privilege.

An old adage says that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. It would seem that these men followed the letter rather than the spirit.

They truly were in an ethical quandary.


At the risk of sounding preachy, which would you have gone, letter or spirit?

How did the Bush Administration an Attorney General Gonzales, miss these two Lawyers, it seems that they are just what this Administration was looking for, Imcompetent,Immoral just what they were looking for.....

I bet they sleep good at night, too.

The sleep of the dammed.

I just finished "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham - the true story of wrongfully convicted men who were on death row for a murder they didn't commit. The cops never followed up on blaring leads in both cases. Only DNA freed them years later, and that was only because the DA was sure the DNA would seal their fate and get the execution chamber ready for them. Even after the DNA cleared them beyond any doubt he still insisted they were guilty.

Fact it, if you don't have money you don't get a fair trial

Attorney-client privelage is a sacred bond that should NEVER be broken.

How (in good conscience) can these lawyers dare to
divulge information that was given to them in
confidence? Please tell me that the state bar is
looking into this matter.

I am not surprised by the DA insisting that those men were still guilty. A District Attorney is in someways a hired hunter. Their job is to get convictions. To admit error or to acknowledge that they convinced a jury to reach an incorrect decision is not part of their make up.

If its not in the Lawyer's contract,morality does not apply!

Hey these 2 guys were "Lawyers" so what the hell do you expect from them...morality,decency or humanity - No! Not unless those values been specifically negotiated and settled beforehand in a signed contract!

We don't have a JUSTICE system in this country .

What we have is the "appearance" of jurisprudence.

There's no concern for the facts, no push for the truth of the matter, instead it's who has the best argument, the most prestigious expert, and of course in criminal cases a police force that is willing to commit perjury without a blush.

Sovereign Immunity shields prosecutors and other government officials from prosecution so their conduct is rarely punished.

Whenever an innocent person is jailed or imprisoned the guilty party is free to perpetrate more crimes and that should result in a minimum of disbarment, and preferably the prosecutor should serve out the sentence for the crime.

Same for the cops who often withhold exculpatory evidence, or cajole some crook to testify to a "jailhouse" confession.

What is truly appalling is that these two lawyers have the audacity to claim that their "ethics" prevented them from coming forward to defend an innocent man. Truly disgusting.

Since he is used to the big house, I almost think this guy should get out and pop a cap on these 2 a--holes. What the hell, he would just be back home and we would be free of 2 useless frickin lawyers.

what do you call 3 lawyers at the bottom of the lake?
a good start.

bottom feeding, ambulance chasing, dregs of society.

To simple people. all complexities are simple problems. Wonder what the wielders of rightie rhetoric would say were it a priest and the dilemma was about the seal on the confessional booth.

Yeah, to me there's little more disgusting than innocent people sitting in some slammer, be it Folsom or Attica, Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. I'm sure I'd have tried to do SOMEthing, spoken to some judge while refusing to compromise my sacred oaths.

This is a major dilemma, as is the moral injunction against torture even if your own family is involved. Spare me the simplistic shit of the snipers and BLTs. herm

This is stupid. Common sense would be that you have to tell just so an innocent man doesnt go to prison. It's the right thing to do. These cops didnt do that.

Lawyers are kinda low on the food-chain:

(here's a snap-shot)

96. used car salesman
97. criminal defense attorney
98. gay porno movie star
99. hit man

Lawyers being scumbags? SAY IT AIN'T SO...

What I can't understand is the apparent indifference of the governor and other officials who still keep this man behind bars. Let him out, compensate him for his lost decades. Why do they resist?

What I can't understand is the apparent indifference of the governor and other officials who still keep this man behind bars. Let him out, compensate him for his lost decades. Why do they resist?

Posted by danni at 2008-04-13 08:40 AM | Reply

I would hazzard a guess and say the Egos of the Prosecutors office.

Larry Mohr

If a lawyer knowingly sends an innocent man to prison, the lawyer should have to do the time in place of the innocent person.

We have a legal system, not a justice system.

I don't give a f**c about client privlege, the guilty have to be punished, not the innocent.

96. used car salesman
97. criminal defense attorney
98. gay porno movie star
99. hit man


That's kind of hard on the gay porno movie star. Granted, porn probably isn't the best career choice, but it's not one rung higher than hit man.

Oh, you will. And I doubt the Almighty will be sympathetic to your law school pedigrees and your insistence on attorney-client privilege.

Posted by rightisright

Thanks RightIsBlight, that's exactly why the majority of us want to keep your "Almighty" out of our government.

Thanks RightIsBlight, that's exactly why the majority of us want to keep your "Almighty" out of our government.

Posted by RastaCyborg

Not even close to what he was talking about.

I don't give a f**c about client privlege, the guilty have to be punished, not the innocent.

Same with "Executive Priviledge". Let the waterboarding commence!

And as for doctor-patient confidentiality, fuck that and throw Limbaugh in prison too.

btw-The innocent man is black. Had this guy been charged recently, most of the people expressing their faux outrage would have been demanding an immediate lynching.

And, if the lawyers had gone to court saying they had evidence this guy was innocent, would it have mattered? The cops found evidence in the guilty guys place and ignored it and had "witnesses" against the innocent guy.

And he'll have to deal with eyewitnesses. His lawyer says one person changed her story in the two trials, but a second, the security guard injured in the shooting, did not. (A third, who has since died, had acknowledged that Wilson and Logan looked alike.)
Sounds like the Prosecution had made up its mind.

Sounds like they had made

obviously they are liberal lawyers

Wonder what the wielders of rightie rhetoric would say were it a priest and the dilemma was about

Posted by herm at 2008-04-12 10:54 PM | Reply

As a Christian I would say that the rule of justice outweighs. I cannot imagine any priest or pastor saying otherwise. There are rules, but they are governed by wisdom.

How (in good conscience) can these lawyers dare to
divulge information that was given to them in
confidence? Please tell me that the state bar is
looking into this matter."

Attorney/client privilege dies when the client does. Read the story.

Personally I think they should have consulted with the State Bar as to what their responsibilities were. I like to think that the state bar would have told them to reveal the information to prevent this injustice, and if the persmission came from the state bar then their asses would be covered. If however they did that and the state bar told them to keep mum then they would have revealed the information at the risk of losing their ability to make a living. There is too much missing information in this story. I think the information was far too important for them to take it upon themselves to evaluate the extent of the attorney/client privilege. I think cooler heads at the state bar ethics committee should have weighed in.

Ya got Hitler, Stalin, a lawyer, and a gun with only 2 bullets...waddya do?


Shoot the lawyer twice.