I happen to be a fan of the "cops and lawyers" genre of TV action fare. Mrs. Vulture and I watch The Closer, Criminal Minds, Law & Order, and Law & Order SVU faithfully. So we're sort of "up on" the terminology. The term "attorney-client privilege" comes up all the time, particularly in the "Law & Order" shows. For the most part I'm comfortable with the concept inasmuch as it is there to protect a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights. But when something like this comes up, I have to question the ludicrous lengths to which the legal profession can distort and misuse privilege.
An innocent man was behind bars. His name was Alton Logan. He did not kill a security guard in a McDonald's restaurant in January 1982.It seems that Andrew Wilson was their client.
"In fact," the document said, "another person was responsible."
___
They knew, because Andrew Wilson told them: He did it.
But that was the catch.
So...........can someone please explain to me WHY this precludes them from going to a judge and telling him, "Your Honor, we have exculpatory evidence that we cannot reveal without violating attorney-client privilege -- but we know for a fact that Alton Logan is innocent"? I mean, SURELY there must be some kind of work-around for these kinds of situations, wouldn't you think? A man's life was RUINED because these literalists wouldn't act. He has been in prison for a crime he didn't commit for 26-EFFING-YEARS!
Did they, in fact, do the right thing in putting their client's interests ahead of those of an innocent man? Am I wrong? Because what they did seems wrong to me. Morally wrong. Ethically wrong. Common-sense wrong.
