Defender explains how an innocent man did 26 years

By Jeff Cappel

Alton Logan sat in jail for 26 years,, convicted of killing a security guard at a McDonald's restaurant in Chicago in 1982. Professing innocence, he sat and watched hours roll into days, and days roll into years.

Logan was arrested after police received a tip and eyewitnesses identified him in a lineup. His mother and brother testified that he was home asleep at the time of the shooting.

A jury convicted him of first-degree murder. A 10 to 2 vote spared Logan from the death penalty, giving him life in prison instead. It seemed like an open and shut case, not unlike countless others.

But this one wasn't like the others. Logan appears to have been innocent.

Dale E. Coventry and William Jameson "Jamie" Kunz, both public defenders at the time, knew that. The real killer, Andrew Wilson, told them he was the triggerman, not Logan.

Coventry spoke about the case, and the ethical issues involved, during the West Suburban Bar Association Law Day luncheon May 1. He was joined by Harold J. Winston, head of the post-conviction department of the public defender's office, who is now handling Logan's case.

Ballistics tests at the time confirmed that a shotgun shell recovered at McDonald's matched a gun found at Wilson's residence. The attorneys didn't know about the shell casing until a year later.

Coventry and Kunz represented Wilson for the murders of two police officers. His confession fell under attorney-client privilege, preventing both lawyers from disclosing what they knew. Wilson told the lawyers they could reveal the truth upon his death.

They composed an affidavit, asserting that Logan was innocent and that another individual was the killer. After sealing the affidavit in an envelope, Coventry placed it in a metal lockbox and kept it in his home.

The secret remained locked away for 26 years. In January 2008, Coventry received a call from Kunz. Wilson had died in prison and their secret could finally be revealed.

At the May 1 luncheon, Coventry explained that the story began when Edgar Hope, Wilson's accomplice the day of the shooting, told Marc Miller, his public defender, that he didn't know Logan and had never seen him before.

Hope told Miller to tell public defenders that Logan was innocent and that Wilson was the triggerman. Miller did tell them but offered no further details.

When Coventry asked Wilson about it, he received an unapologetic confession. Yes, Wilson was the real shooter that day.

So Coventry and Kunz wrote the affidavit, stating they knew who killed the security guard, and that it wasn't Alton Logan.

"But we didn't say who the real killer was," Coventry told WSBA members. "We said our information came from privileged sources - Andrew Wilson and his accomplice, Edgar Hope. Coventry secured a waiver from Wilson that permitted use of the confession after his death.

"Had I known then what I know now," Coventry explained, "I would have been very glad to get that waiver because if I didn't, I still wouldn't be talking about this. Ethically, you cannot reveal the confidences of your client, even after death."

Did Miller violate ethics rules by revealing what Hope told him? "The rules state that once you waived, you've waived, and that information could go to us," Coventry said (Miller had a waiver from Hope).

Harold Winston became involved in the Logan case in 2000, when Logan filed a post-conviction petition. Winston spent several years interviewing witnesses and gathering information that suggested Logan wasn't the shooter.

He learned of Wilson's death last November and was aware that he needed to contact Coventry and Kunz. The wheels of justice turned for a few more months, and on April 18, Logan was freed on bond and granted a new trial.

"I have great respect for the attorney general's office," Winston said. "I'm hoping that they do the right thing on the court date, and that's to say that there's no way that we can convict, and then drop the charges."

Under the Illinois ethics rule, he said, there was nothing Kunz and Coventry could do. "They owed an undivided duty of loyalty to their client, and that loyalty is basic to the attorney-client system."

Winston added that under Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6, lawyers may reveal confidential information in order to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of an individual (see Hearsay, page 4).

He added that if the Illinois rule is ever changed, he'd like to see one other change: the declaration could not be used against a person making it.

Winston acknowledged that defense attorneys would find such a proposal problematic.

"They would say that prosecutors couldn't use the statement, but it would provide them with a lead and they would pursue it," he said. "So in effect, they are getting some secondary information. That's true, but I think the cause of justice is still served."

Coventry noted that if the ethics rule were changed, he'd like to see a provision that confidentiality can be revealed without a waiver when the client dies.

Back to Table of Contents