Andy's Blog
Thankfully the USA is not a democracy, we are a republic. This means we democratically elect people to represent us. And because of this, our rights go beyond the majority and apply to all of our citizens - including the minority. The heart of our republic is protected by the Supreme Court, and I was all the more grateful to God for that this week when I realized that Americans are stupid...This past weekend we discussed the case of Alton Logan. A man who was sentenced to jail in the same year I was born (1982) for a crime he did not commit. But here is the kicker: two attorneys representing the actual murderer, knew of the truth, but because of attorney-client privilege could not share the information.
Allen thinks these attorneys should have come forth and broke their oath. Most of our listeners shared this sentiment. I, on the other hand, think this it the type of thing that would erode our entire judicial system, which protects every single right we have. Take a listen to a 3-minute edit of what was said.
No it is not just how it is Allen (and America). And now that I can speak uninterrupted, I am going to tell you why.
What he fails to recognize is that by eroding the attorney-client privilege, you erode the 6th amendment, and when you erode the 6th amendment, you essentially erode our entire Constitution and the rights that are established within.
Do you like freedom of speech? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.
Do you like freedom of religion? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.
Do you like freedom of the press? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.
Do you like the fact you have the right to a fair trial? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.
The only thing that separates America from Iran or China or North Korea is the 6th amendment. And to erode attorney-client privilege is to beg Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to bring us his sense of justice.
The 6th amendment grants us the the right to a fair trial, which, among other things, assumes the requirement of Assistance of Counsel (an attorney). Who is going to go to an attorney and be honest if he can't trust that his attorney will keep his information private and provide him the best possible defense.
No one. And here's the thing. It doesn't even take a rebuttal of the 6th amendment to erode the system. It only takes 4 or 5 renegade attorneys taking their ethics into their own hands and having the Nancy Graces and the Allen Hunts of the world congratulating them for doing it, and before we know it, we have lost what makes America great.
Which brings me back to the Supreme Court. Americans can try all they want to apply situational ethics to the 6th amendment, but there will never be 5 Supreme Court justices that do not understand what is riding on attorney-client privilege. So sleep easy America, your rights are protected, even from yourself.
There needs to be a way to preserve confidentiality on one hand and enable wrongly convicted people to be exonerated. For example, a procedure should be in place for lawyers to meet with judges in such cases who then can take the evidence presented to them under advisement. Evidence can then be presented in open court redacted to confidential information.
It should not be up to renegade lawyers to flaunt the system, rather the system should be reformed to both preserve confidentiality and prevent miscarriages of justice to continue.
But Allen is a real hypocrite. He thinks a lawyer should break the confidentiality in this case, but a priest should not. In other words, he would be comfortable with a priest letting an innocent . If anything, lawyer-client confidentiality is more serious than the priest-church member confidentiality. After all, Catholic Church is nothing but a glorified private club.
That would kill the integrity of the legal system. It would take just a couple of cases where a defense attorney realized he was loosing big time, call up his golfing buddy attorney friend, and have him make up some bogus claim about someone confessing to him.
But then you say, ok, then this process has to have a whole proof system to it...also known as...a TRIAL! So your back to square one.
As I said on air, I agree with you on that one.
But I also disagree with you. You may forget that the underlying premise of our entire judicial system is that JUSTICE be served, NOT laws! Also, as any law school professor would tell you, there is also the fundamental principle that "it is better 10 guilty go free, than one innocent man is wrongly convicted".
I don't know how these two lawyers (& they certainly are not the first, by a long shot) can sleep at night, knowing the wrong man is in prison for life! And this should be OK, simply to support some rules?
I love how you characterize an innocent man, forcibly disgraced, and having to spend his entire life in a prison cell as "unfortunate", and "this country was built on the backs of individuals sacrificing for the greater good."
Well, it's obvious you are of the "unfortunate" mindset, promulgated by most of the radio talk show pundits, that "collateral damage" is ok, in so many areas of life. Dude, this man did not CHOOSE to use HIS back on which to shoulder the "sacrificing for the common good", you so casually toss out!
If you feel this strongly about this, & you are truly honest, then perhaps YOU should volunteer your life to fill in for the next wrongly convicted man sentenced to life in prison, or even death! That way YOU can be one of those sacrificing for "the common good"...
Our judicial laws are in place to PROTECT THE INNOCENT, not to let innocent men be wrongly convicted. It's bad enough when a lawyer knows his client is guilty, yet gets him off, THAT is the exception our system allows, should the state not make a strong enough case, but to allow a client who they KNOW is INNOCENT? Man, only a person with an odd, or no set of morality can condone that kind of abomination!
Secondly, why call America (and I assume lawyers) money hungry when the basic tenant of attorney-client privilege dates back a couple centuries and I think the annual income of attorneys then was well below anything you'd consider 'money hungry'. And for the record, I thought Allen's theory that the priest/parishioner or pastor/congregant relationship was more valid or (gasp) sacred than attorney/client was hypocritical.
Not fair. I want a nemesis too...
One blog-technical issue: when are we getting editing capabilities. I have mangled a few sentences up there and it sucks.
You mention "sacrificing for a greater good". I guess sacrifice is a cheap thing as long as it is someone else's sacrifice. And besides, I do not think greater good is served with an absolutist view of attorney-client privilege. Not even constitutional rights such as freedom of speech or religion are absolute, so why should this be an exception?
Certainly greater good should not be sacrificed to some theoretical principle. Not that the principle should be abandoned, but modified so as to be practical.
A statutory exception to attorney-client privilege (and priest/pastor-sheeple privilege just to be fair) would be a good idea. If a state does not want to go that far, a way for attorneys to disclose exculpatory evidence without disclosing everything as a matter of a public record. For example, have a hearing before a judge, similar to an evidentiary hearing. An independent judge should preside to avoid conflicts of interest. I am not an attorney, nor a son of one, but
On an unrelated note: tell Allen that 45 millimeters is 1.77 inches. What does he want? College students hitching anti-tank cannons to their rides (puts a whole another meaning to "pimp my ride" I guess)? As long as they are 21 years of age and properly trained of course.
The one about not being an attorney should continue "but even so I can definitely say that innocent people being sent to prison because of an absolutist view of attorney-client privilege is just not worth it."
That said, it's interesting how often people, especially those who express their views quite adamantly, when faced with a rebuttal, will simply make a crack about the messenger, while ignoring the message...
Despite what you might think, I am really not trying to convince you of anything Steven. You have clearly made up your mind. What I am trying to do is convince people who are open-minded and haven't made up their decision yet.
So when you respond (like you did above), and I feel I have already answered your objections, I don't really have anything left to say (as oppose to the Obama blog you post in, where your objections, while illogical, still require further clarification).
It's just like the e-mail you sent the other day accusing Allen of being anti-Obama. I emailed you back explaining how I didn't think that was the case, you e-mailed me back explaining why you thought I was wrong. I left it at that because nothing in your new e-mail required any further clarification - you were going to hold to your opinions.
You will find this is how I operate. We don't have to agree on everything.