Good job he wasn't sentenced to death

[kallend 2,184]

26 years in prison, then declared innocent.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

"It may cause us to lose some sleep." - wankers

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[downwardspiral 0]

leaving an innocent man in prison for 26 years is ethical?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

leaving an innocent man in prison for 26 years is ethical?

I guess legal ethics are different from regular ethics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

"It may cause us to lose some sleep." - wankers

Im sure it caused HIM to lose alot of sleep. I was multi tasking. Sorry. I just read it. The lawyers are slimeballs either way w/, how do I say, NO MORALS. Knowingly let the guy rot for their careers. They need to spend the next 26 yrs. in prison.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[shropshire 0]

I don't understand your "".... if you read the article maybe you'd see that mine was aimed to the 2 dick-head lawyers - thank you

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

This cbs site is too damn slow - I can't get page 2. But the main problem here is clear.

You all are mad at the attorneys, but what do you propose? They violate attorney-client priviledge? Once you've gone that far, you now have judges ordering attorneys to testify against their clients.

Having them secretly tell the judge - no better. Now you'll have creeps tag teaming confessions to get each other off.

The problem here isn't with these attorneys, but rather that the guy was convicted of a crime he didn't participate in. Does the rest of the article explain how that happened?

[downwardspiral 0]

three witnesses testified Logan was the shooter.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

three witnesses testified Logan was the shooter.

Short of the actual shooter confessing in open court, would the hearsay of an unrelated lawyer overcome 3 witnesses?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't understand your "".... if you read the article maybe you'd see that mine was aimed to the 2 dick-head lawyers - thank you

The flip side is that if you retained these guys, paid them to be confidential, then you would want all correspondence kept secret. I'm not saying I agree with what happened, but something has to give.

OTOH, let's talk about yet another group of hillbilly trash we call a jury that loves to convict; they seem to get a good feeling when they do.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

three witnesses testified Logan was the shooter.

Right, so all the pro-capital punishment guys saying that we need to expedite the process are really saying we need to execute more innocent people. As well, their standard of 3 people testifying that they personally saw the shooter, hence beyond any doubt as a new standard of proof has been once agin shot in the ass here.

[shropshire 0]

I'd suggest that the guy that did it, lost ALL rights when he was in prison so the lawyers should have been able to get the innocent guy off.
2 people lost their lives in that shooting... both innocent, both tragic, but one of the could have been saved.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

three witnesses testified Logan was the shooter.

Short of the actual shooter confessing in open court, would the hearsay of an unrelated lawyer overcome 3 witnesses?

They were going to try if Logan received the death penalty because it would be ok to prevent a death. In my mind, if it's ok to prevent a death then it's ok to prevent an innocent man being imprisoned for life.

BUT the ethics committee sees it differently and I'm no lawyer. Just seems backwards to me.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

three witnesses testified Logan was the shooter.

Right, so all the pro-capital punishment guys saying that we need to expedite the process are really saying we need to execute more innocent people. As well, their standard of 3 people testifying that they personally saw the shooter, hence beyond any doubt as a new standard of proof has been once agin shot in the ass here.

You're absolutely right.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 2,184]

I wonder where the pro-death penalty guys have gone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

They were going to try if Logan received the death penalty because it would be ok to prevent a death. In my mind, if it's ok to prevent a death then it's ok to prevent an innocent man being imprisoned for life.

They didn't know even then how they would do it, but the jury opted against the DP and so they weren't quite so compelled to try, thinkingthat he might get a new trial somehow.

This is a very strong example to use for DP opposers, though even Logan himself remarked that 26 years isn't very different from death. I wonder what sort of restitution he gets, and if it even makes up for 5% of his lost life.

[downwardspiral 0]

Hey I'm not criticizing the attorneys. I'm criticizing the system. The attorneys did everything the ethics committee would allow. What would have happened if they didn't and made an attempt to save Logan's life?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[JohnMitchell 16]

It shows, as much as anything, the lack of quality of the public defenders that poor people depend on. It also shows the tendency of the police and prosecutors to coach witnesses to testify, under oath, of the veracity of what they saw, when they actually didn't.

Unfortunately, we have a legal system, not a justice system.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'd suggest that the guy that did it, lost ALL rights when he was in prison so the lawyers should have been able to get the innocent guy off.
2 people lost their lives in that shooting... both innocent, both tragic, but one of the could have been saved.

You still have the 8th, 5th, 6th, 14th etc. Confidentiality extends to at least the natural life of the client.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

three witnesses testified Logan was the shooter.

Short of the actual shooter confessing in open court, would the hearsay of an unrelated lawyer overcome 3 witnesses?

They were going to try if Logan received the death penalty because it would be ok to prevent a death. In my mind, if it's ok to prevent a death then it's ok to prevent an innocent man being imprisoned for life.

BUT the ethics committee sees it differently and I'm no lawyer. Just seems backwards to me.

When we start making exceptions, we lose all integrity. It's a tough one, but I guess the only answer is to give everyone immunity from that crime and move on.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I wonder where the pro-death penalty guys have gone.

The same place the guy who wrote that Palin's views were not 20% of American societies, as I posted several sites claiming poll results to support that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hey I'm not criticizing the attorneys. I'm criticizing the system. The attorneys did everything the ethics committee would allow. What would have happened if they didn't and made an attempt to save Logan's life?

Automatic disbarment. Watch, "And Justice for All" with Al Pachino.... he does just that with a judge as a client. "...and the judge should go straight to fucking hell......."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It shows, as much as anything, the lack of quality of the public defenders that poor people depend on. It also shows the tendency of the police and prosecutors to coach witnesses to testify, under oath, of the veracity of what they saw, when they actually didn't.

Unfortunately, we have a legal system, not a justice system.

Not to mention the prpensity of juries to convict at all costs.

I witnessed a beer run gone bad, gave witness reports, arrests were made..... 3 or 4 years went by and the prosector called me the day before appearance and asked me to show up the next day, so I did. It had been several years, so I forgot exactly what he looked like. The prosecutor told me to walk into the courtroom and see if I recognized the defendant. He then said, "Oh, and he's the Mexican guy." I walked in to the front, turned around and walked out and on the way saw 1 Hispanic guy there who did look like the same body type, face looked somewhat familiar. So I walked out and said I'm about 80% sure that was him, but I can't be positive. He said OK, I left and no doubt he went to the defense and told him that his witness positively ID'd the defendant.