Group: sci.med.diseases.lyme
Lyme Disease: patient support, research & information.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
OT: After 26 years, a taste of freedom
OT: After 26 years, a taste of freedom
www .chicagotribune,com /news/local/chi-alton-logan-new-trial-webapr19,0,4677554.story
chicagotribune,com
After 26 years, a taste of freedom
New trial ordered in '82 slaying of guard
By Steve Schmadeke
Tribune reporter
11:01 PM CDT, April 18, 2008
A man serving a life sentence for the murder of a security guard walked
out of Cook County Jail a free man for the first time in more than a
quarter of a century after a judge on Friday ordered a new trial.
Shortly before 6 p.m., a visibly emotional Alton Logan, 54, clutched two
relatives as he strode to his brother's black sport-utility vehicle. He
wore brother Tony's green shirt and dark khakis.
In the back seat, he popped candies into his mouth and gave a one-word
answer--"Fine"--when asked by a reporter how he felt. Tears streamed
down his cheeks.
"He's not been exonerated yet ..... but it will happen," said another
brother, Eugene, who lives in Portland and last shook his brother's hand
in 1980.
His family quickly raised the $1,000 bail set by Judge James Schreier as
he ruled new evidence made it "a reasonable probability" that Logan
would be acquitted if prosecutors try him again.
Two attorneys for a convicted cop killer had known for 26 years of
Logan's innocence but had kept silent because of the attorney-client
privilege. Their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to them that he
shotgunned a security guard to death in January 1982, but he insisted
they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving
a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died in
prison of natural causes Nov. 19.
One of Wilson's lawyers, Jamie Kunz, attended Friday's hearing in the
Criminal Courts Building and called Schreier's decision a powerful moment.
"His family was shedding tears and so was I," Kunz said outside the
courtroom. "I've known Logan was innocent for 26 years."
In testimony Friday, a former employee at the McDonald's restaurant on
the South Side where security guard Lloyd Wickliffe was slain identified
Wilson from a photo as the gunman.
Gail Hilliard, a CTA bus driver who was an 18-year-old college student
working an evening shift the night of the murder, said she was about to
make a milkshake for a drive-through customer when she heard a commotion
at the counter, turned and saw a shotgun-toting man enter the restaurant.
She first identified the man as Wilson in a 1999 interview with attorney
Richard Kling. Hilliard was interviewed by police after the slaying but
did not give a statement, said Vincenzo Chimera, a lawyer with the
Illinois attorney general's office.
That office, which is prosecuting the case, will make the decision
whether to go to trial again.
Additional new evidence came from Joseph Prendergast, 63, a semi-retired
teacher who tutored Wilson in prison for several months in 1982 and
1983. Prendergast, who came forward recently after reading a story about
the case in the Tribune, testified Friday that Wilson told him at the
time that he had shot a shotgun inside a McDonald's.
Also Friday, prosecutors called to the stand Alvin Thompson, 56, a
security guard wounded the night of the shooting. He again identified
Logan as the gunman.
According to Chimera, Logan has been identified in court testimony 18
times as the gunman. He argued to the judge that Hilliard's
identification of Wilson came years after the crime and that Prendergast
didn't hear Wilson specifically confess to the 1982 murder.
After leaving the county jail, Logan's brother drove him to the South
Side home of his aunt Barbara Cannon, with whom he will stay for now.
Like most family members at Friday's hearing, Cannon said she was not
bitter about the years her nephew spent behind bars.
"We're not angry," she said. "They did what they had to do."
However, Logan's uncle, Arthur Gordon, 70, voiced a dissenting view
shortly after he contributed $100 to his nephew's bail fund.
"Justice had to be done," he said. "But to lay him there for 26 years
..... it makes me bitter."
The family plans to drive Logan to Burr Oak Cemetery on Saturday to
visit the grave sites of his mother and a grandmother, who both died
while he was in prison, said his brother Tony, 52. Over the years,
Logan, who was very close to his mother, sent her a bird cage, wine rack
and other items he made in prison, his brother said.
Never doubting his innocence, family members all over the country kept
in touch by phone with Logan, who managed to keep his sense of humor
intact. "What's up, knucklehead?" was his standard greeting. In recent
weeks, Logan spoke hopefully of getting out of prison.
Eugene Logan said he and his wife have already made a room ready in
their Oregon home and plan to turn the garage into a wood shop to
accommodate his brother's hobby. They hope Alton will come live with
them once exonerated.
"I wish I could put him on a plane right now," his brother said.
sschmadeke@tribune,com
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
www .chicagotribune,com /news/local/chi-alton-logan-new-trial-webapr19,0,4677554.story
chicagotribune,com
After 26 years, a taste of freedom
New trial ordered in '82 slaying of guard
By Steve Schmadeke
Tribune reporter
11:01 PM CDT, April 18, 2008
A man serving a life sentence for the murder of a security guard walked
out of Cook County Jail a free man for the first time in more than a
quarter of a century after a judge on Friday ordered a new trial.
Shortly before 6 p.m., a visibly emotional Alton Logan, 54, clutched two
relatives as he strode to his brother's black sport-utility vehicle. He
wore brother Tony's green shirt and dark khakis.
In the back seat, he popped candies into his mouth and gave a one-word
answer--"Fine"--when asked by a reporter how he felt. Tears streamed
down his cheeks.
"He's not been exonerated yet ..... but it will happen," said another
brother, Eugene, who lives in Portland and last shook his brother's hand
in 1980.
His family quickly raised the $1,000 bail set by Judge James Schreier as
he ruled new evidence made it "a reasonable probability" that Logan
would be acquitted if prosecutors try him again.
Two attorneys for a convicted cop killer had known for 26 years of
Logan's innocence but had kept silent because of the attorney-client
privilege. Their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to them that he
shotgunned a security guard to death in January 1982, but he insisted
they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving
a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died in
prison of natural causes Nov. 19.
One of Wilson's lawyers, Jamie Kunz, attended Friday's hearing in the
Criminal Courts Building and called Schreier's decision a powerful moment.
"His family was shedding tears and so was I," Kunz said outside the
courtroom. "I've known Logan was innocent for 26 years."
In testimony Friday, a former employee at the McDonald's restaurant on
the South Side where security guard Lloyd Wickliffe was slain identified
Wilson from a photo as the gunman.
Gail Hilliard, a CTA bus driver who was an 18-year-old college student
working an evening shift the night of the murder, said she was about to
make a milkshake for a drive-through customer when she heard a commotion
at the counter, turned and saw a shotgun-toting man enter the restaurant.
She first identified the man as Wilson in a 1999 interview with attorney
Richard Kling. Hilliard was interviewed by police after the slaying but
did not give a statement, said Vincenzo Chimera, a lawyer with the
Illinois attorney general's office.
That office, which is prosecuting the case, will make the decision
whether to go to trial again.
Additional new evidence came from Joseph Prendergast, 63, a semi-retired
teacher who tutored Wilson in prison for several months in 1982 and
1983. Prendergast, who came forward recently after reading a story about
the case in the Tribune, testified Friday that Wilson told him at the
time that he had shot a shotgun inside a McDonald's.
Also Friday, prosecutors called to the stand Alvin Thompson, 56, a
security guard wounded the night of the shooting. He again identified
Logan as the gunman.
According to Chimera, Logan has been identified in court testimony 18
times as the gunman. He argued to the judge that Hilliard's
identification of Wilson came years after the crime and that Prendergast
didn't hear Wilson specifically confess to the 1982 murder.
After leaving the county jail, Logan's brother drove him to the South
Side home of his aunt Barbara Cannon, with whom he will stay for now.
Like most family members at Friday's hearing, Cannon said she was not
bitter about the years her nephew spent behind bars.
"We're not angry," she said. "They did what they had to do."
However, Logan's uncle, Arthur Gordon, 70, voiced a dissenting view
shortly after he contributed $100 to his nephew's bail fund.
"Justice had to be done," he said. "But to lay him there for 26 years
..... it makes me bitter."
The family plans to drive Logan to Burr Oak Cemetery on Saturday to
visit the grave sites of his mother and a grandmother, who both died
while he was in prison, said his brother Tony, 52. Over the years,
Logan, who was very close to his mother, sent her a bird cage, wine rack
and other items he made in prison, his brother said.
Never doubting his innocence, family members all over the country kept
in touch by phone with Logan, who managed to keep his sense of humor
intact. "What's up, knucklehead?" was his standard greeting. In recent
weeks, Logan spoke hopefully of getting out of prison.
Eugene Logan said he and his wife have already made a room ready in
their Oregon home and plan to turn the garage into a wood shop to
accommodate his brother's hobby. They hope Alton will come live with
them once exonerated.
"I wish I could put him on a plane right now," his brother said.
sschmadeke@tribune,com
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
Re: OT: After 26 years, a taste of freedom
Quote from the article posted above:
"Two attorneys for a convicted cop killer had known for 26 years of
Logan's innocence but had kept silent because of the attorney-client
privilege. Their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to them that he
shotgunned a security guard to death in January 1982, but he insisted
they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving
a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died in
prison of natural causes Nov. 19."
Also see: http :// news.yahoo,com /s/ap/20080412/ap on re us/the26 year silence
Quote from the article posted above:
"Two attorneys for a convicted cop killer had known for 26 years of
Logan's innocence but had kept silent because of the attorney-client
privilege. Their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to them that he
shotgunned a security guard to death in January 1982, but he insisted
they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving
a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died in
prison of natural causes Nov. 19."
Also see: http :// news.yahoo,com /s/ap/20080412/ap on re us/the26 year silence
Re: OT: After 26 years, a taste of freedom
On Apr 20, 6:28 am, Sewer Rat <ratfromthese...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Quote from the article posted above:
>
> "Two attorneys for a convicted cop killer had known for 26 years of
> Logan's innocence but had kept silent because of the attorney-client
> privilege. Their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to them that he
> shotgunned a security guard to death in January 1982, but he insisted
> they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving
> a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died in
> prison of natural causes Nov. 19."
>
> Also see: http :// news.yahoo,com /s/ap/20080412/ap on re us/the26 year silence
SR:
It is very diifficult for "laypersons" (in this case, I mean non-
attorneys) to understand the dynamics of the situation here.
"Attorney-client" privilege means that communications between the
attorney and client are "privileged" and CANNOT...without the consent
of the CLIENT...be made public or used or introduced in evidence in
any way. And there is an obvious reason for this...to allow a proper
defense for the accused.
Each attorney swears to uphold the law and these rules...and is
strictly accountable for following them. IF the two attorneys had
broken the privilege...they could have been theoretically disbarred.
The privilege MUST be waived by the client...and the client ONLY.
I am somewhat familiar with this case, saw an extensive interview with
the two lawyers here, locally. (Don't know either of them,
personally).
It really was the client...the actual person responsible who would not
waive the privilege for some reason, even though he was in jail on
other charges. The anguish of the two lawyers was apparent. Why? Who
knows. He seemed to take some sort of fiendish satisfaction in this
situation...that someone else had been convicted for crimes he
committed.
In suppose, though, knowing how Chicago "works" I wonder why,
somehow...one of the lawyers did not manage to find a way to have a
conversation that "never happened" with someone who could do something
about it.
I would like to think that if one of the two had come forward...that
the Supreme Court of Illinois, (responsible for attorney discipline
here) would have been lenient in reviewing the case...
...a horrible tragedy, though...
...but from what I could see and hear..,it seemed as though the
lawyers DID follow the rules.
It's not a perfect system..,it 's run by human beings.
On Apr 20, 6:28 am, Sewer Rat <ratfromthese...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Quote from the article posted above:
>
> "Two attorneys for a convicted cop killer had known for 26 years of
> Logan's innocence but had kept silent because of the attorney-client
> privilege. Their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to them that he
> shotgunned a security guard to death in January 1982, but he insisted
> they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving
> a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died in
> prison of natural causes Nov. 19."
>
> Also see: http :// news.yahoo,com /s/ap/20080412/ap on re us/the26 year silence
SR:
It is very diifficult for "laypersons" (in this case, I mean non-
attorneys) to understand the dynamics of the situation here.
"Attorney-client" privilege means that communications between the
attorney and client are "privileged" and CANNOT...without the consent
of the CLIENT...be made public or used or introduced in evidence in
any way. And there is an obvious reason for this...to allow a proper
defense for the accused.
Each attorney swears to uphold the law and these rules...and is
strictly accountable for following them. IF the two attorneys had
broken the privilege...they could have been theoretically disbarred.
The privilege MUST be waived by the client...and the client ONLY.
I am somewhat familiar with this case, saw an extensive interview with
the two lawyers here, locally. (Don't know either of them,
personally).
It really was the client...the actual person responsible who would not
waive the privilege for some reason, even though he was in jail on
other charges. The anguish of the two lawyers was apparent. Why? Who
knows. He seemed to take some sort of fiendish satisfaction in this
situation...that someone else had been convicted for crimes he
committed.
In suppose, though, knowing how Chicago "works" I wonder why,
somehow...one of the lawyers did not manage to find a way to have a
conversation that "never happened" with someone who could do something
about it.
I would like to think that if one of the two had come forward...that
the Supreme Court of Illinois, (responsible for attorney discipline
here) would have been lenient in reviewing the case...
...a horrible tragedy, though...
...but from what I could see and hear..,it seemed as though the
lawyers DID follow the rules.
It's not a perfect system..,it 's run by human beings.
Re: OT: After 26 years, a taste of freedom
On Apr 20, 10:15 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:28 am, Sewer Rat <ratfromthese...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> > Quote from the article posted above:
>
> > "Two attorneys for a convicted cop killer had known for 26 years of
> > Logan's innocence but had kept silent because of the attorney-client
> > privilege. Their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to them that he
> > shotgunned a security guard to death in January 1982, but he insisted
> > they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving
> > a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died in
> > prison of natural causes Nov. 19."
>
> > Also see: http :// news.yahoo,com /s/ap/20080412/ap on re us/the26 year silence
>
> SR:
>
> It is very diifficult for "laypersons" (in this case, I mean non-
> attorneys) to understand the dynamics of the situation here.
>
> "Attorney-client" privilege means that communications between the
> attorney and client are "privileged" and CANNOT...without the consent
> of the CLIENT...be made public or used or introduced in evidence in
> any way. And there is an obvious reason for this...to allow a proper
> defense for the accused.
>
> Each attorney swears to uphold the law and these rules...and is
> strictly accountable for following them. IF the two attorneys had
> broken the privilege...they could have been theoretically disbarred.
> The privilege MUST be waived by the client...and the client ONLY.
>
> I am somewhat familiar with this case, saw an extensive interview with
> the two lawyers here, locally. (Don't know either of them,
> personally).
>
> It really was the client...the actual person responsible who would not
> waive the privilege for some reason, even though he was in jail on
> other charges. The anguish of the two lawyers was apparent. Why? Who
> knows. He seemed to take some sort of fiendish satisfaction in this
> situation...that someone else had been convicted for crimes he
> committed.
>
> In suppose, though, knowing how Chicago "works" I wonder why,
> somehow...one of the lawyers did not manage to find a way to have a
> conversation that "never happened" with someone who could do something
> about it.
>
> I would like to think that if one of the two had come forward...that
> the Supreme Court of Illinois, (responsible for attorney discipline
> here) would have been lenient in reviewing the case...
>
> ...a horrible tragedy, though...
>
> ...but from what I could see and hear..,it seemed as though the
> lawyers DID follow the rules.
>
> It's not a perfect system..,it 's run by human beings.
Here's the actual rule text. Notice that it DOES require the attorney
to notify authorities in the event of knowledge of a planned crime...
RULE 1.6. Confidentiality of Information
(a) Except when required under Rule 1.6(b) or permitted under Rule
1.6(c), a lawyer shall not, during or after termination of the
professional relationship with the client, use or reveal a confidence
or secret of the client known to the lawyer unless the client consents
after disclosure.
(b) A lawyer shall reveal information about a client to the extent it
appears necessary to prevent the client from committing an act that
would result in death or serious bodily harm.
(c) A lawyer may use or reveal:
(1) confidences or secrets when permitted under these Rules or
required by law or court order;
(2) the intention of a client to commit a crime in circumstances other
than those enumerated in Rule 1.6(b); or
(3) confidences or secrets necessary to establish or collect the
lawyer's fee or to defend the lawyer or the lawyer's employees or
associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct.
(d) The relationship of trained intervenor and a lawyer, judge, or a
law student who seeks or receives assistance through the Lawyers'
Assistance Program, Inc., shall be the same as that of lawyer and
client for purposes of the application of Rule 8.1, Rule 8.3 and Rule
1.6.
(e) Any information received by a lawyer in a formal proceeding before
a trained intervenor, or panel of intervenors, of the Lawyers'
Assistance Program, Inc., shall be deemed to have been received from a
client for purposes of the application of Rules 1.6, 8.1 and 8.3.
On Apr 20, 10:15 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:28 am, Sewer Rat <ratfromthese...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> > Quote from the article posted above:
>
> > "Two attorneys for a convicted cop killer had known for 26 years of
> > Logan's innocence but had kept silent because of the attorney-client
> > privilege. Their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to them that he
> > shotgunned a security guard to death in January 1982, but he insisted
> > they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving
> > a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died in
> > prison of natural causes Nov. 19."
>
> > Also see: http :// news.yahoo,com /s/ap/20080412/ap on re us/the26 year silence
>
> SR:
>
> It is very diifficult for "laypersons" (in this case, I mean non-
> attorneys) to understand the dynamics of the situation here.
>
> "Attorney-client" privilege means that communications between the
> attorney and client are "privileged" and CANNOT...without the consent
> of the CLIENT...be made public or used or introduced in evidence in
> any way. And there is an obvious reason for this...to allow a proper
> defense for the accused.
>
> Each attorney swears to uphold the law and these rules...and is
> strictly accountable for following them. IF the two attorneys had
> broken the privilege...they could have been theoretically disbarred.
> The privilege MUST be waived by the client...and the client ONLY.
>
> I am somewhat familiar with this case, saw an extensive interview with
> the two lawyers here, locally. (Don't know either of them,
> personally).
>
> It really was the client...the actual person responsible who would not
> waive the privilege for some reason, even though he was in jail on
> other charges. The anguish of the two lawyers was apparent. Why? Who
> knows. He seemed to take some sort of fiendish satisfaction in this
> situation...that someone else had been convicted for crimes he
> committed.
>
> In suppose, though, knowing how Chicago "works" I wonder why,
> somehow...one of the lawyers did not manage to find a way to have a
> conversation that "never happened" with someone who could do something
> about it.
>
> I would like to think that if one of the two had come forward...that
> the Supreme Court of Illinois, (responsible for attorney discipline
> here) would have been lenient in reviewing the case...
>
> ...a horrible tragedy, though...
>
> ...but from what I could see and hear..,it seemed as though the
> lawyers DID follow the rules.
>
> It's not a perfect system..,it 's run by human beings.
Here's the actual rule text. Notice that it DOES require the attorney
to notify authorities in the event of knowledge of a planned crime...
RULE 1.6. Confidentiality of Information
(a) Except when required under Rule 1.6(b) or permitted under Rule
1.6(c), a lawyer shall not, during or after termination of the
professional relationship with the client, use or reveal a confidence
or secret of the client known to the lawyer unless the client consents
after disclosure.
(b) A lawyer shall reveal information about a client to the extent it
appears necessary to prevent the client from committing an act that
would result in death or serious bodily harm.
(c) A lawyer may use or reveal:
(1) confidences or secrets when permitted under these Rules or
required by law or court order;
(2) the intention of a client to commit a crime in circumstances other
than those enumerated in Rule 1.6(b); or
(3) confidences or secrets necessary to establish or collect the
lawyer's fee or to defend the lawyer or the lawyer's employees or
associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct.
(d) The relationship of trained intervenor and a lawyer, judge, or a
law student who seeks or receives assistance through the Lawyers'
Assistance Program, Inc., shall be the same as that of lawyer and
client for purposes of the application of Rule 8.1, Rule 8.3 and Rule
1.6.
(e) Any information received by a lawyer in a formal proceeding before
a trained intervenor, or panel of intervenors, of the Lawyers'
Assistance Program, Inc., shall be deemed to have been received from a
client for purposes of the application of Rules 1.6, 8.1 and 8.3.
