The Death of Common Sense
Seldom do I read an article in the paper that just upsets me. But on Friday this was the leading headline in the N&O: Lawyer's revelation may ruin him. Here are the facts in brief:
1. In 1984 a couple are shot & stabbed to death in Cumberland Co. Three drug dealer, low-lifes are charged.
2. The murderer (Cashwell) tells his lawyer that he ALONE killed the folks. Because of the "attorney-client privilege" the lawyer doesn't/can't tell anyone the actual truth.
3. The true murderer IS found guilty. However, another innocent man (Hunt) is also found guilty based on bullet evidence that seemed to match some bullets he had at his house AND fabricated lies testified to by other drug dealers (who only testified in exchange for immunity and reduced sentences).
4. Both men serve years in prison. In 2002, the murderer commits suicide in prison. The innocent man is STILL in prison (almost 20 years later).
Now I will preface this by saying that I understand the whole confidentiality thing to a degree. And, I know that I am probably just over simplifying all of this. But, when did common sense die in the whole justice system. How come just because it is his LAWYER that a murderer confesses to, it can all be covered up. Everyone else is expected to tell the truth in a courthouse except the murderer and his lawyer. I have an idea: if a murderer confesses to ANYONE how about we all see that justice is served. God forbid that a murderer have to lie in court AND have to lie to his lawyer too. I think if someone is going to try to claim innocence KNOWING he's guilty, he should have to lie to everyone (let God deal with him.) How come he has the "privilege" of telling his lawyer the actual truth safely. Who are we looking out for here? What about justice? When did lawyers (men of the law) get so disassociated with justice. For a naive person like me I just assumed law and justice should go together.
So as it stands, a murderer was convicted and served many years in prison (Hallelujah for that). Then he commits suicide (wonder what was bothering him????). In addition, an innocent man has lost 20 years of his life locked up in prison (granted, at the time, he was probably a good riddance off the streets for other reasons than murder). So, the lawyer, now that his client is dead, decides to tell the truth. Imagine that: the truth in all of this. Currently the lawyer is clearly in jeopardy of losing his law license. Before the lawyer recently told the truth in court, the judge "gave him a blunt warning" that the judge WOULD be filing a grievance with the Bar.
I have an idea: how about someone who cares about justice and has a little common sense look at this lawyer and say...you did the right thing.
1. In 1984 a couple are shot & stabbed to death in Cumberland Co. Three drug dealer, low-lifes are charged.
2. The murderer (Cashwell) tells his lawyer that he ALONE killed the folks. Because of the "attorney-client privilege" the lawyer doesn't/can't tell anyone the actual truth.
3. The true murderer IS found guilty. However, another innocent man (Hunt) is also found guilty based on bullet evidence that seemed to match some bullets he had at his house AND fabricated lies testified to by other drug dealers (who only testified in exchange for immunity and reduced sentences).
4. Both men serve years in prison. In 2002, the murderer commits suicide in prison. The innocent man is STILL in prison (almost 20 years later).
Now I will preface this by saying that I understand the whole confidentiality thing to a degree. And, I know that I am probably just over simplifying all of this. But, when did common sense die in the whole justice system. How come just because it is his LAWYER that a murderer confesses to, it can all be covered up. Everyone else is expected to tell the truth in a courthouse except the murderer and his lawyer. I have an idea: if a murderer confesses to ANYONE how about we all see that justice is served. God forbid that a murderer have to lie in court AND have to lie to his lawyer too. I think if someone is going to try to claim innocence KNOWING he's guilty, he should have to lie to everyone (let God deal with him.) How come he has the "privilege" of telling his lawyer the actual truth safely. Who are we looking out for here? What about justice? When did lawyers (men of the law) get so disassociated with justice. For a naive person like me I just assumed law and justice should go together.
So as it stands, a murderer was convicted and served many years in prison (Hallelujah for that). Then he commits suicide (wonder what was bothering him????). In addition, an innocent man has lost 20 years of his life locked up in prison (granted, at the time, he was probably a good riddance off the streets for other reasons than murder). So, the lawyer, now that his client is dead, decides to tell the truth. Imagine that: the truth in all of this. Currently the lawyer is clearly in jeopardy of losing his law license. Before the lawyer recently told the truth in court, the judge "gave him a blunt warning" that the judge WOULD be filing a grievance with the Bar.
I have an idea: how about someone who cares about justice and has a little common sense look at this lawyer and say...you did the right thing.
posted by Amy at
5:08 AM
1 Comments:
That is a very sad case. It is a real shame stories like this one are not rare anymore. I read "Journey Toward Justice" author Dennis Fritz and I started a blog called Barbara's Journey Toward Justice. http://barbarasblogspot.blogspot.com . I feel these stories have to be heard. Dennis Fritz is the other innocent man in John Grisham's book The Innocent Man. Dennis Fritz spent 12 years in prison for a crime of rape and murder, he did not commit.
By
Barbara's Journey Toward Justice, At
November 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home