We defense lawyers have long argued these things. But we have also been shot down by persuasive prosecutors who have pushed the notion that crime victims and witnesses seldom misidentify criminal perpetrators.

Then, along came DNA. Genetic marking evidence has not only been a valuable crime-solving tool but has also resulted in hundreds of exonerations across the country, many in cases involving serious charges such as rape and murder. Some of these exonerations have resulted in the release of individuals who had been serving life sentences or, worse yet, were on death row.

An analysis of the cases that have resulted in DNA exonerations has revealed that many of those imprisoned in such cases were convicted on the basis of faulty eyewitness identifications. One such person, Kirk Bloodsworth, was convicted in Baltimore County of the rape and murder of a young girl. A parade of witnesses identified Bloodsworth as the perpetrator in live lineups and photographic arrays, the presentation of which in court produced the impression of a mountain of evidence against him. He was convicted, and when asked if he had anything to say prior to sentencing, Bloodsworth said he didn't know what to say, because he was innocent and would never have done such a thing. He received the death penalty.

Fortunately, the case was reversed on appeal. Though he was convicted again, Bloodsworth received a non-parolable life sentence the next time around, which gave him several years to contemplate his innocence. Eventually, DNA evidence proved it, Bloodsworth was released, and another man, who bore a striking resemblance to Bloodsworth, was arrested and convicted.

Again, the Bloodsworth case is just one of many in which people falsely convicted based on eyewitness identification evidence were later exonerated by DNA. It makes one wonder how many others have been falsely convicted and were not lucky enough to reap the benefits of DNA analysis.

One would hope it would make prosecutors wonder, and that all of these exonerations would make them more circumspect about the cases they proscute. One would also hope prosecutors would be more leery of cases in which evidence is scant -- aside from eyewitness testimony. Truth be told, the jury is still out on this issue, but I have seen little evidence of this. More often than not (in my experience anyway), a defense lawyer who suggests that a prosecutor consider dismissing a case because it is based on "only" eyewitness identification evidence is likely to get a roll of the eyes and an accusation that he is a "bleeding heart" or a "believer" (which is another word, I suppose, for a sucker).

Hopefully, over time prosecutors will be less convinced by such evidence and will demand more before they embark on prosecutions that may deprive innocent people of their liberty.  After all, nothing is worse than finding out that someone who has spent 15 or 20 years in jail was actually innocent of the crime fore which he was convicted. 

Nothing, that is, except for never finding out.

For those who don't know the story, these lawyers already represented Andrew Wilson on charges of murdering two police officers, a crime for which he was eventually sentenced to life without parole. During this representation, the lawers developed information that their client had also murdered a McDonald's security guard, a crime for which another man, Alton Logan, was accused. When they confronted Wilson, he confirmed that he -- not Logan -- had committed this crime, as well.

Bound by their ethical obligations, these attorneys kept this information under wraps. Meanwhile, Logan was tried and convicted of the charge, and was himself sentenced to life without parole. 

Twenty-six years later, following Wilson's death, the lawyers came forward to exonerate Logan. Apparently, their client told them that once he was dead, they could reveal his confidence, and so they did, setting in motion the events that should result in the exoneration and release of the innocent Logan.

My take on all of this is that these lawyers -- unless they did everything humanly possible to right this wrong when they first dicovered it -- should be ashamed of themselves. I have been a criminal defense attorney for 20 years, and a public defender for 15 of those, and I know all about the attorney-client privilege.  But there are things these attorneys could have done to rectify this situation, such as trying like crazy to convince their client to come clean, regardless of the consequences (after all, he was already facing double murder charges). If their client was willing to admit what he had done on condition that he not receive the death penalty, his lawyers could have gone to the prosecutor and advised they had "compelling" evidence that the wrong person was being prosecuted for this murder. Perhaps the State would have been willing to agree not to seek death in the case in exhange for information that would have prevented prosecution of an innocent man. 

In short, had it been me, I would have stopped at nothing in an effort to exonerate Logan. I would have found a way, or at least exhausted every possibility. And if nothing else worked, I would have comitted a direct breach of my ethical obligations as an attorney -- i.e., I would have revealed the confidence and taken my lumps. Those lumps would have included disbarment, but so what? Isn't there a duty to prevent an injustice from destroying the life of a completely innocent person,  if it is within your power to do so? I believe there is. 

My sense from reading articles about this case is that these attorneys feel they should be applauded for doing the right thing after all these years and for maintaining the confidence of their client for so long lin the face of intense internal pressure to reveal all. I don't see it that way. I see them as cowards, unwilling to put their careers on the line to do the right thing.

I suspect Alton Logan would agree with me.

At first I loved that job, sitting wide-eyed as people aired out their dirty laundry. I covered some memorable cases, ones that might earn mention in this blog at some point. But eventually I couldn't get over the feeling that my life consisted of writing about people who were more important than I, that all these cops and lawyers were out there doing something big, while all I was doing was I was contributing to their glory. Plus, all those calls to families of murder victims got old; my ear still rings from all the receivers slammed down in my ear.

In any event, I eventually decided that I wanted to be the person other journalists wrote about, so I went to law school, eyeing a career in criminal law. Somehow, when it (law school) was all said and done, I had forgotten my dream and found myself in a prominent civil firm, pushing a lot of paper and taking a lot of depositions. I was working in the firm's Towson office but, young and single at the time, I longed for life in the city. I requested a transfer to the firm's downtown office, and got my wish -- sort of. There was one string attached. I would have to join the firm's asbestos department. Ugh!

I suddenly seemed miles away from my dream, and decided it was time to rekindle it. I send out resumes, including one to the Office of the Public Defender. I soon got an interview, then a job as an APD (Assistant Public Defender) in Howard County.  I did a couple of stints in the agency's city office, but eventually was transferred to Balimore County, where I carved out my little niche. I have since left that office, and now am in private practice, handling mostly criminal cases (but a few civil ones, too), and have been loving life ever since. 

In this blog, I will try to let you experience the life of a criminal defense attorney up close and personal. I will share plenty of war stories, mixing in complaints about prosecutors, judges and pompous colleagues, and observations about the criminal jsutice system. It is a life that isn't for most people, but folks I meet always seem interested in the stories I have to tell, so hopefully someone somewhere will find this stuff interesting. 

In any event, I look forward to my future as an Examiner.