<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: &lt;i&gt;60 Minutes&lt;/i&gt; on Alton Logan
    
      by Michael Miner</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=943693&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: &lt;i&gt;60 Minutes&lt;/i&gt; on Alton Logan
    
      by Michael Miner</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:15:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#966043]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#966043]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Traton]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[From the State Bar of Illinois, Article VIII, Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (emphasis mine):
    
    Rule 3.3. Conduct Before a Tribunal
      (a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer SHALL not:
         (2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when disclosure is NECESSARY TO AVOID ASSISTING A CRIMINAL or FRAUDULENT ACT BY THE CLIENT.
      (b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) are CONTINUING DUTIES and apply EVEN IF COMPLIANCE REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY RULE 1.6.
    
    In my humble opinion, deceiving the court into believing that another man committed a crime is a "fraudulent act by the client."  As such, when the attorneys "failed to disclose" this "material fact," the attorneys violated their ethical obligation under Rule 3.3(a)(2).
    
    Since, according to the Rules, 3.3 (candor to the tribunal) trumps 1.6 (maintaining confidential information),  the attorneys clearly had an escape valve.  They simply chose not to use it.
    
    Simply our humble opinions,
    Morley Moore and Ingrid Ingram
    for Traton News
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Traton]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:36:58 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#965243]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#965243]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Keleigh]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I am amazed that someone could go to sleep every night, on a secret that devestating.  I want to know how are you going to look in Logans face and tell him that you had his life in your hands all this time.  I also want to know how this eye witness feels.  I would think that these lawyers could have found a way for this all to come out.  I think they now owe Logan a lifetime.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Keleigh]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:16:25 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#963727]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#963727]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Screw Dale Coventry]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Screw Dale Coventry.  Wrong Wrong Wrong.  Dumb sh**.  Make an anonymous phone call to the police.  Lousy bastard.  Put the F***** in jail for Contempt of Life and Jutice.  Fake righteous man, rot in jail.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Screw Dale Coventry]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:03:09 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#965422]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#965422]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[wrongfully convicted]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[having been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to 65 years - then freed - i approach this discussion from a more experiential and personal perspective.
    
    one minute is too long for someone to hold on to information that could free you. it is one minute wrong also.
    
    when we keep information about a murder from the police we can be sentenced to life just like a person responsible for the act itself. 
    
    why would someone be any less responsible for keeping information that could free someone to have their life back when it has been wrongly taken by the system?
    
    Because it happens. And it is worse than death.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by wrongfully convicted]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:18:51 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#959604]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#959604]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Bob Newman]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[There is a reason why people think of lawyers as slimballs, they are too worried protecting murders than protecting an innocent man.  It was easy for Coventry and Kunz to hold on the their clieents confession, that would have freed an innocent man, because they had a choice to sleep in on weekends, go on a family outing or drive to the store and get a gallon of milk.  Or better yet have a family and watch it grow!  At some point people (lawyers included) need to do what is right and take care of people.  What I find amazing is that lawyers can live with themselves protecting murderers that are happy they murdered someone.
    
    People have brought up that it could have been a morale decision to withhold information to keep a gleeful murderer from the death penalty.  I disagree.  Wilson should have received the death penalty from the beginning and  there should have been a party when he was put to death showing everybody's happiness he was dead.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Bob Newman]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:34:00 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#949331]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#949331]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Natali Del Conte]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Is there something we can do to move this trial along? Write to someone? Anything?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Natali Del Conte]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:12:09 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#949217]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#949217]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Dr. Joe Wagner]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Twisted logic characteristic of the legal profession which gives them a ranking below used car salesmen in the public eye.  I have discussed this matter with a civil lawyer in Los Angeles and a Judge in Santa Monica who agree the lawyers were bound by their code of ethics.  A Federal District attorney in Los Angeles however disagrees and says there are "work-arounds" for exceptional cases such as this one.  To blithely allow a perfectly innocent man to suffer 26 years in the penitentiary with full knowledge of who the real culprit was all the time begs the question of decency and humanity.  The convicted felon already in prison and represented by these "eminent" criminal lawyers Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz could hardly have suffered any more should the truth be revealed and justice (if there is such a thing as "justice") would have been served.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Dr. Joe Wagner]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:07:05 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#973024]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#973024]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Michael Miner]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Wilson was convicted in February, 1983, a couple of weeks before Logan. Wilson was sentenced to death, Logan to life. Down the road, Wilson's conviction was overturned because of his tainted confession, he was tried a second time without the confession being introduced as evidence, convicted again, and this time sentenced to life. If, at any stage, Coventry and Kunz had considered proposing the deal that 'crim defense lawyer' suggests, I don't blame them for deciding against it. There's no reason why the prosecutors would have gone for the deal. As 'Different Point of View' points out, they were heavily invested in Logan's guilt. And if they did somehow summon up the character to reopen the McDonald's murder, they wouldn't have needed Wilson's confession to convict him. They'd already linked the murder weapon to him, for instance; and Edgar Hope probably would have told them Logan was innocent and everybody on the street knew Wilson was his partner in crime.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Michael Miner]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:15:41 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#951577]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#951577]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[crim defense lawyer]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Two points not explored on 60 minutes:
    
    (1) Revelation of the confession would have almost certainly resulted in the death penalty for Andrew Wilson in light of his previous conviction for murdering 2 cops.  Choosing not to kill one man for the sake of freeing another might well be a morally correct decision.  
    
    (2)  However, no one has asked Coventry and Kunz whether they ever tried to work out a deal with Wilson and the prosecutors for immunity from the death penalty if Wilson confessed.  Wilson was serving a life sentence and could not have been further harmed by receiving another life sentence.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by crim defense lawyer]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:49:38 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#956537]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#956537]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Civil Lawyer]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I'm hard-pressed to see what else Coventry et al. could have done. I'm not convinced that you have to obtain a waiver of privilege from a client to reveal privileged info after he's dead, but these guys revealed what they knew immediately after Wilson died anyway, so that aspect doesn't matter.
    
    The problem here wasn't with the public defenders - the cops and state's attorneys were the ones that charged Logan and put on a (now discredited) case against him. Their reasons were obvious and bad - Wilson was already sure to get natural life or the death penalty for another crime, and here was Logan, available and black. Once Logan was indicted, of course, the Cardinal could have testified that Logan was teaching macrame to orphans at the time of the killing, and the State's Attorney wouldn't have budged on the case.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Civil Lawyer]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:41:01 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#970832]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#970832]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Different point of view]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Coventry and Kunz did not put Logan in prison. The police and the prosecutors did. They had plenty of evidence that Andrew Wilson was Hope's partner, not Logan.  But they chose to look the other way because they had already obtained an eyewitness identification of Logan that would make it nearly impossible to charge someone else with the crime.
    
    If Wilson's attorneys had disclosed the confession way back then, one of two things would have happened: 1) the prosecutors would have declared it false and fought tooth and nail (probably successfully) to keep it out of Logan's trial, or 2) the prosecution would have adjusted its theory to support three offenders instead of two.  It's much more likely than not that Logan would have been convicted anyway.  Who would have believed a cop killer like Wilson anyway?
    
    It is just so typical of the media that for the most part coverage of the story lays the blame at the feet of the least culpable players -- the public defenders -- rather than the prosecutors who sent away an innocent man for life.  When is someone going to ask them to apologize for this tragedy?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Different point of view]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:28:21 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: 60 Minutes on Alton Logan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#949760]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#949760]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[tim howe]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I'm a lawyer, but I don't practice criminal defense, so it may be too easy for me judge.
    
    But while I hold my duties under the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct quite dear, I hold my duties as a human being even more dear.  The silence of defense counsel when the client confesses in confidence is a difficult concept for most to grasp.  It is, however, a necessity.  Where no immediate harm (save to perhaps the victim or their loved ones seeking closure) results from that silence, though, it is easily defensible (at least in theory).  Not so where that silence does direct, obvious and ongoing harm to another, particular when that other is wholly innocent.
    
    There should of course be consequences, visited by the Attorneys Registration and Disciplinary Commission, for the violation of the rule that prohibits disclosure of client confidence.  But under these circumstances, Kunz and Coventry should have spoken up and suffered those consequences.  It may not have been the technically "ethical" thing to do, but if would have been the RIGHT thing to do.
    
    Again, though, its unlikely that I'll ever have to make that choice, so if it seems that this is but empty moralizing, I stand guilty as charged.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by tim howe]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:21:58 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




