26 year secret

Summary

Mon Logan was wrongfully convicted of murder in 1982 and served 26 years in prison. Despite two attorneys, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, knowing of his innocence due to their client's confession, they were bound by attorney-client privilege. They remained silent until their client's death, when they revealed the truth, leading to Logan's release. The case highlights the flaws in the justice system and the ethical dilemmas faced by attorneys.

Takeaways

• 🕵️‍♂️ Mon Logan was wrongfully convicted of murdering a security guard at a McDonald's in Chicago in 1982.
• 👥 Two attorneys, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, knew Logan was innocent but were bound by attorney-client privilege and could not disclose this information.
• 🗣️ Their client, Andrew Wilson, confessed to the murder Logan was accused of, but this confession was kept secret due to legal ethics.
• 📜 The attorneys documented their knowledge of Logan's innocence in a sealed affidavit, which was kept safe until they could legally reveal it.
• 🏢 Despite knowing the truth, the attorneys felt morally conflicted but legally bound to not prevent Logan's life sentence.
• 🤔 The dilemma highlighted the tension between the attorney's ethical duty to their client and the moral obligation to prevent an innocent person's imprisonment.
• 🚫 The attorneys explored but found no legal loophole that would allow them to reveal the truth without jeopardizing their client.
• 🗓️ It took 26 years for the truth to come to light, only after Wilson's death, when the attorneys were finally able to reveal the affidavit.
• 🏆 After the new evidence was presented, Mon Logan was exonerated and released from prison, with the attorney general deciding not to retry him.
• 🌟 The case underscores the importance of addressing flaws in the justice system that allow for such injustices to occur.

Q & A

How long was Mon Logan wrongfully imprisoned for?

Mon Logan was wrongfully imprisoned for 26 years.

What crime was Mon Logan convicted of?

Mon Logan was convicted of killing a security guard at a McDonald's in Chicago in 1982.

Who were the two attorneys that knew Mon Logan was innocent?

The two attorneys who knew Mon Logan was innocent were Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz.

Why did the attorneys stay silent about Mon Logan's innocence?

The attorneys stayed silent because their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to the murder, and they were legally bound by attorney-client privilege to keep his secret.

What did the attorneys do to document Mon Logan's innocence while maintaining client confidentiality?

The attorneys wrote an affidavit stating that Mon Logan was not guilty of the murder and sealed it in an envelope, which they kept in a lock box for future reference.

What was the turning point that allowed the attorneys to finally speak out about Mon Logan's innocence?

The turning point was the death of Andrew Wilson, their client who had confessed to the murder. After his death, the attorneys took the affidavit out of the lock box and contacted Mon Logan's lawyer.

What was the role of the public defender, Harold Winston, in Mon Logan's case?

Harold Winston was trying to get Mon Logan a new trial and had found two eyewitnesses who swore Logan was not the killer. The affidavit from Kunz and Coventry provided additional evidence to support Logan's innocence.

How did Mon Logan feel about the attorneys' decision to remain silent until Andrew Wilson's death?

Mon Logan sympathized with the attorneys' position but did not understand why they would allow an innocent person to be prosecuted and imprisoned for so many years.

What was the final outcome for Mon Logan after the attorneys came forward with the affidavit?

A judge threw out Mon Logan's conviction citing the new evidence, and he was released on a $1,000 bond. The Illinois' attorney general decided not to appeal the ruling and was considering whether to retry Mon or drop the charges.

What was Mon Logan's reaction to the possibility of starting his life again at the age of 54?

Mon Logan's brother expressed confidence that Mon would be able to start again, stating that if he were released, they would live life together.

What did Mon Logan say about the justice system's handling of his case?

Mon Logan stated that the system is quick to convict but slow to correct its mistakes, and all he wanted was the truth.

Outlines

00:00

🕵️‍♂️ Injustice Exposed: The Silent Attorneys

The script begins with Bob Simon introducing the story of Alton Logan, who was wrongfully convicted of murder and served 26 years in prison. Despite knowing Logan's innocence, two attorneys, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, remained silent due to their ethical obligations to client confidentiality. They reveal that their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to the murder Logan was accused of. The attorneys faced a moral dilemma: uphold the law or speak out to save an innocent man. They chose to keep quiet but documented their knowledge in a sealed affidavit, hoping for a future opportunity to reveal the truth.

05:04

📜 The Dilemma of Ethics: Silence or Speak Out?

This paragraph delves into the ethical conflict faced by Coventry and Kunz. They explain their inability to violate attorney-client privilege, even to prevent an innocent man's life sentence. The attorneys agonized over their decision but ultimately chose to remain silent until Wilson's death. They discuss the possibility of leaking information but concluded it would jeopardize their client. The conversation also includes Alton Logan's perspective, who, despite understanding the attorneys' position, cannot fathom why they would allow an innocent person to suffer. Public defender Harold Winston is introduced, who is working to exonerate Logan and believes the attorneys' affidavit could be instrumental in securing his freedom.

10:04

🏆 Freedom at Last: The Truth Sets Logan Free

The final paragraph describes the emotional toll the case took on all involved, including the attorneys who felt guilt and pain over Logan's wrongful imprisonment. It highlights Logan's family's unwavering belief in his innocence and their hope for his release. The narrative concludes with a positive turn: one month after the report, a judge vacated Logan's conviction based on new evidence, including the attorneys' affidavit, and he was released. The Illinois attorney general decided not to appeal, indicating a potential end to Logan's ordeal and the possibility of him being fully exonerated.

Keywords

💡Innocent

In the context of the video, 'innocent' refers to a person who has not committed a crime but is accused of it. The video's central theme revolves around Mon Logan, who is portrayed as an innocent man wrongfully convicted of murder. The script emphasizes his innocence through testimonies from his family and the revelation of new evidence, contrasting with the legal system's assumption of guilt.

💡Attorneys

Attorneys, or lawyers, play a critical role in the justice system, representing clients in legal matters. In the video, two attorneys, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, are central figures who knew of Mon Logan's innocence but were bound by client confidentiality. Their ethical dilemma is a key narrative point, illustrating the tension between professional obligations and moral responsibility.

💡Confidentiality

Client confidentiality is a legal and ethical principle that attorneys must uphold, ensuring that communications with their clients remain private. The script highlights the attorneys' struggle with this principle, as they were aware of their client Andrew Wilson's confession but could not disclose it without breaching confidentiality, leading to Mon Logan's prolonged imprisonment.

💡Ethical Dilemma

An ethical dilemma is a situation requiring a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive. The video presents the dilemma faced by the attorneys, who must choose between maintaining client confidentiality and revealing the truth to prevent an innocent person's conviction. This dilemma is central to understanding the complexity of the case and the attorneys' actions.

💡Affidavit

An affidavit is a sworn written statement of facts that is confirmed by an oath or affirmation to tell the truth, often used in legal proceedings. In the script, the attorneys create an affidavit to document their knowledge of Logan's innocence, which they keep sealed until their client's death, showing their intention to uphold the truth while adhering to legal constraints.

💡Conviction

A conviction is the verdict in a criminal case that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. Mon Logan's conviction for murder, despite his innocence, is a central point of the video, illustrating the failure of the justice system to protect the innocent and the devastating personal impact of such a wrongful conviction.

💡Jurors

Jurors are individuals selected to decide the outcome of a trial. The script mentions the jury's decision not to sentence Logan to death, which had a direct impact on the attorneys' decision not to reveal his innocence. This highlights the power and responsibility of jurors in the justice system.

💡Death Penalty

The death penalty, or capital punishment, is the legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The video discusses the jury's consideration of the death penalty for Logan, underscoring the gravity of the situation and the high stakes involved in the case.

💡Life Imprisonment

Life imprisonment is a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convicted person's life. The video contrasts the attorneys' willingness to prevent Logan's execution with their inaction regarding his life sentence, raising questions about the value placed on different forms of punishment within the justice system.

💡New Evidence

New evidence refers to information or proof that comes to light after a trial that could potentially alter the outcome of the case. In the video, new evidence, including the attorneys' affidavit and eyewitness testimony, becomes crucial for Logan's eventual release, demonstrating the importance of ongoing review and reconsideration in the justice system.

💡Systemic Failure

Systemic failure implies that a problem is deeply rooted within an organization or system. The video implies systemic failure in the justice system that allowed an innocent man to be convicted and imprisoned, highlighting the need for reform and a reevaluation of procedures to prevent such miscarriages of justice.

Highlights

Mon Logan was wrongfully convicted of murder in 1982 and spent 26 years in prison.

Two attorneys, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, knew Logan was innocent but remained silent due to attorney-client privilege.

Their client, Andrew Wilson, confessed to the murder Logan was charged with.

Logan maintained his innocence throughout his imprisonment.

The attorneys were morally conflicted but legally bound to keep their client's confession secret.

They prepared an affidavit to document their knowledge of Logan's innocence.

The attorneys only came forward after their client, Wilson, died, allowing them to reveal the truth.

Public defender Harold Winston was already working to get Logan a new trial with new eyewitnesses.

The attorneys' affidavit became crucial evidence in Logan's case.

Logan was released after a judge threw out his conviction based on the new evidence.

Illinois' attorney general decided not to appeal the ruling and is considering dropping the charges.

The story highlights the flaws in the justice system that allowed an innocent man to be imprisoned for so long.

The dilemma faced by the attorneys raises questions about the ethics of attorney-client privilege.

Logan's case illustrates the importance of the truth and the potential for exoneration even after many years.

The attorneys' decision to remain silent until their client's death was a complex moral and legal choice.

The emotional toll on all parties involved, including the attorneys, is evident throughout the transcript.

The transcript provides a detailed account of the legal and ethical challenges in cases of wrongful conviction.

Transcripts

BOB SIMON: This is a story about an innocent man who's been in prison for 26 years, while

two attorneys who knew he was innocent stayed silent.

As we first reported earlier this year, they did so because they felt they had no choice.

Mon Logan was convicted of killing a security guard at a McDonald's in Chicago way back

in 1982.

Police arrested him after a tip, and got three eyewitnesses to identify him.

Logan, his mother and his brother all testified he was at home asleep when the murder occurred.

But a jury found him guilty of murder.

Now, new evidence reveals that Logan did not commit that murder, something that was not

new to those two attorneys, who knew it all along, but say they couldn't speak out until

now.

Alton Logan's story cuts to the core of America's justice system.

SIMON: We met Mon Logan in prison.

BOB SIMON: Mr. Logan.

MR.

ALTON LOGAN: How you doing?

SIMON: He's spent half of his life here.

BOB SIMON: You still count the months and the days and...

MR.

LOGAN: There's no need to count the months and the days.

Just count the years.

SIMON: You must have been angry a lot during this time.

MR.

LOGAN: I'd say the first five, six years, I was consumed by anger.

Then I come to the realization that why be angry over something you can't control?

SIMON: Did you commit that murder?

MR.

LOGAN: No, I did not.

SIMON: What did you think when you were arrested for that murder?

MR.

LOGAN: I thought they was crazy.

SIMON: These two attorneys, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, knew Logan had good reason

to think that.

Why?

Because they knew he was innocent.

And they knew that because their client, Andrew Wilson, who they were defending for killing

two policemen, confessed to them that he had also killed the security guard at McDonald's.

That's the crime that Logan was charged with.

MR.

JAMIE KUNZ We got information that Wilson was the guy, and not Mon Logan.

This was just a month after Wilson had been arrested.

So we went over to the jail immediately almost and said, 'Is that true?

Was that you?'

And he "aid, 'Yep, it was me.'

SIMON: Just as casually as you just said it?

MR.

DALE COVENTRY: Yes.

MR.

KUNZ: Yeah.

He just about hugged himself and smiled.

I mean, he was kind of gleeful about it.

It was a very strange response.

SIMON: How did you interpret that response?

MR.

KUNZ It was true and that he was tickled pink.

MR.

COVENTRY: He was pleased that the wrong guy had been charged.

It was like a game that--and he'd gotten away with something.

But there was just no doubt whatsoever that it was true.

I mean, I said, 'It was you with the shot--you killed the guy?'

And he said, 'Yes.'

And then he giggled.

SIMON: Problem was the killer was their client, so legally, they had to keep his secret even

though an innocent man was about to be tried for murder.

BOB SIMON: I know a lot of people who would say.

'Hey, if the guy's innocent, you've got to say so.

You can't let him rot because of that.'

MR.

COVENTRY: Well, the vast majority of the public apparently believes that.

But if you check with attorneys or ethics committees or, you know, anybody who has--known

the rules of conduct for attorneys.

it's very, very clear.

It's not morally clear, but we're in a position to where we have to maintain client confidentiality

just as a priest would or a doctor would.

It's just a requirement of the law.

The system wouldn't work without it.

SIMON: So that was the dilemma.

They couldn't speak out, they felt, but how could they remain silent?

BOB SIMON: Well, did you contemplate doing something about it?

MR.

COVENTRY: We wrote out an affidavit.

We made an affidavit that we had gotten information through privileged sources that Alton Logan

was not, in fact, guilty of killing the officer, that in fact somebody else did.

MR.

KUNZ We wanted to put in writing to memorialize, you know, to get a notarized record of the

fact that we had this information back then, so that if, you know, 20 years later, 10 years

later, what, if something allowed us to talk, as we are now, we could at least--we'd at

least have an answer to someone who said you're just making this up now.

SIMON: They sealed the affidavit in an envelope and put the envelope in a lock box to keep

it safe under Dale Coventry's bed.

BOB SIMON: While the attorneys kept silent about Logan's innocence, a jury in this courthouse

convicted him of murder.

Then the jurors had to decide whether to sentence him to death.

MR.

COVENTRY: I was in court the day they were dealing with the death penalty.

SIMON: Why did you go to court?

MR.

COVENTRY: Because I had this information that this innocent guy was up there and the jury

was deciding whether they were going to kill him or not.

SIMON: How did you feel when you went into the courtroom?

Was your heart racing?

MR.

COVENTRY: Oh, yeah.

I mean, it was—it was just creepy.

I was looking at the jurors, thinking, 'My God, they're going to decide to kill the wrong

guy.'

SIMON: And the jury decided?

MR.

COVENTRY: They decided not to kill him.

MR.

LOGAN: It was a 10-to-2 vote, 10 for, two against.

Two individuals saved my life SIMON: And saved Kunz and Coventry from coming

forward.

MR.

COVENTRY: We thought that somehow we would stop at least tilt execution.

We weren't going to let that go.

SIMON: But instead he was sentenced to life in prison and you did not do anything_

MR.

KUNZ: Right.

SIMON: So it's OK prevent his execution, if necessary, but it was not OK to prevent his

going to prison for the rest of his life?

MR.

COVENTRY: Morally, there's very little difference, and we were torn about that.

But in terms of the canons of ethics, there is a difference: You can prevent a death.

SIMON: But the minute he was not sentenced to death, the minute he was sentenced to life

in prison, you decided to do nothing?

MR.

KUNZ: Yes.

MR.

COVENTRY: You explain it.

MR.

KUNZ: I can't explain it I don't know why that made the difference but I know it did.

MR.

LOGAN: There's no difference between life in prison and a death penalty, none whatsoever.

Both are a sentence of death.

SIMON: The two attorneys say they couldn't speak up because they couldn't betray their

client.

MR.

LOGAN: Right.

SIMON: Can you sympathize with.

That?

MR.

LOGAN: Yes.

Sympathize with it, yes; understand it, no.

See, because if you know this is an innocent person, why would you allow this person to

be prosecuted, convicted, sent to prison for all these years?

SIMON: What did you do to see if there might be some loophole to get everyone out of this

fix?

MR COVENTRY: I researched the ethics of the attorney-client privilege as much as I could.

I contacted people who are involved with making those determinations.

I know Jamie did the same thing.

MR.

KUN7- I could not figure out a way and still cannot figure out a way how we could have

done anything to help Mon Logan that would not have put Andrew Wilson in jeopardy of

another capital case.

SIMON: Couldn't you have leaked it to somebody—to a reporter, to an administrator, to the governor,

to somebody?

MR.

KUNZ The only thing we could have leaked is that Andrew Wilson confessed to us.

And how could we leak that to anybody without getting—putting him in jeopardy?

It may cause us to lose some sleep, but I'd lose more sleep if I put Andrew Wilson's neck

in the noose.

SIMON: He was guilty and Logan was not, so yes, his head should be in the noose and Logan

should go free.

It's perfectly obvious to somebody who isn't a lawyer.

Andrew Wilson was guilty, was he not?

MR.

KUNZ: Yes.

And that's up to the system to decide- It's not up to me as his lawyer to decide that

he was guilty and so he should be punished and Logan should go free.

SIMON: Do you think you might have been disbarred for doing that, for violating attorney-client

privilege?

MR COVENTRY: I don't think I considered that as much as I considered my responsibility

to my client.

I was very concerned to protect him.

SIMON: But here was a case where two men, you two, were caught up in this bind and chose

to let a man rot away in jail.

MR.

COVENTRY: It seems that way, but had we come forward right away, aside from violating our

own client's privilege and putting him in jeopardy, would the information that we had

had been valued?

Would anybody had done anything?

SIMON: We'll never know.

SIMON: Probably not, they say because as a violation of attorney-client privilege, it

never would have been allowed in court.

They insist that for them, there was no way out.

MR.

COVENTRY: In terms of my conscience, my conscience is that I did the right thing.

Do I feel bad about Logan?

Absolutely, I feel bad about Logan.

SIMON: The two attorneys say they were so tormented over Logan's imprisonment that they

convinced Wilson to let them reveal that Wilson was the real killer after Wilson's death.

Late last year, Wilson died.

The two attorneys finally took that affidavit out of the lock box and contacted Logan's

lawyer.

SIMON: Public defender Harold Winston had already been trying to get Logan a new trial.

He'd found two eyewitnesses who swore Logan was not the killer.

Now, with Kunz and Coventry's affidavit, he thinks Logan will finally go free.

MR.

HAROLD VV1NSTON: I know the attorney general's office in Illinois is considering this, and

I have a lot of respect for that office, and I'm hoping they will come to the night conclusion

that a mistake as been made.

And if they do that, he would go free_ SIMON: And even though Harold Winston represents

Alton Logan, he agrees the two attorneys had to remain silent until Wilson died.

MR.

1N1NSTON: I with there had been a way this could have come out earlier.

SIMON: Could it have?

MR.

WINSTON: Under the Illinois ethics code, I think the only way would have been if Andrew

Wilson had released his lawyers earlier.

MR.

KUNZ: There may be other attorneys who have similar secrets that they're keeping.

I don't want to be too defensive about this, but what makes this case so different is that

Dale and I came forward, and that Dale had the good sense to talk to Wilson before his

death and said--and get his permission, if you die, can we talk?

Without that, we wouldn't be here today.

MR.

LOGAN: See, I've never stopped giving up hope.

I've always believed that one day is going--somebody's going to come forward and tell the truth.

But I didn't know when, SIMON: If you were to meet up with Logan,

if you were visiting him in his cell, what would you say to him?

MR.

COVENTRY: There's nothing you can say.

I mean, we—it's been difficult for us but there's no comparison whatsoever to what it's

been for this poor guy.

MR.

LOGAN: How has it been difficult for them?

MR.

KUNZ: Alton, whether or not you can understand it, we've been hurting for you for 26 years

SIMON: How much does it hurt?

MR.

KUNZ: How often did I think about it?

Probably 250 times a year.

I mean, I thought about it regularly.

MR.

LOGAN: Everything that is dear to me is gone.

SIMON: You missed the funeral of your mother.

MR.

LOGAN: Yes.

SIMON: His brothers, Eugene and Tony, told us they shared Atton's pain, and they always

knew that he was no killer.

UNKNOWN: My brother ain't got nature to do nothing in his soul.

I-le ain't going to take somebody else's life.

We weren't raised like that.

SIMON: Your brother's 54 now.

Can he start again at the age of 54?

UNKNOWN: Mm-hmm.

I think he gonna make it.

If he gets from behind them bars, I'm going to turn him back on to life and we gonna live

it together.

We're going to live it together.

SIMON: But you're still here.

MR.

LOGAN: Yeah.

But you got to understand the system.

SIMON: And the system works slowly.

MR.

LOGAN: They are quick to convict but they are slow to correct their mistakes.

All I want is the truth.

All I want is the truth.

SIMON: And the truth shall set you free.

MR.

LOGAN: Yes, it will.

SIMON: One month after our report, the truth finally did set Mon Logan free.

A judge, citing the new evidence, threw out his conviction and released Logan on just

$1,000 bond.

Illinois' attorney general will not appeal the ruling and is deciding whether to retry

Mon or to simply drop the charges.