Customer Reviews

Privileged Information

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a case that has haunted me since I first read about it in Law School. Frank Armani and Francis Beige were Central New York attorneys appointed to represent serial killer/rapist Robert Garrow, who went on a crime spree in the Adirondacks in 1973. Their client was charged with one killing but revealed to them the location of two other bodies. After checking to be sure the bodies were there, the attorneys tried, unsuccessfully, to use this information as part of a plea bargain. Meanwhile, they were contacted by the distraught father of one of these victims, begging for information about the fate of his child. Believing that forensic evidence available from the remains might tend to further incriminate Garrow, they refused to acknowledge any information about other potential victims. Eventually, Garrow himself revealed the information at trial and the attorneys were charged with violating the code of professional conduct. Though the case and the surrounding publicity had devastating effects on the two men, they were ultimately exonerated, on the basis that they had acted within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

Though I would have behaved differently, I do not particularly quarrel with the attorneys' actions. I do though find the ethical regime which requires such a result to be abhorrent. The basic theory underlying attorney-client privilege is that in order to guarantee the best possible defense, clients must fully disclose all information to their attorneys, and that the only way to insure that they feel comfortable doing so is to grant the privilege. This reasoning is simply not compelling. If full disclosure really is essential to a good defense, then the client has a vested interest in disclosure--they after all are the ones most interested in a good defense. It seems entirely fair to let them choose between holding back incriminating information at their own expense, or sharing that information at some peril.

Moreover, to allow (arguably, to require) lawyers to withhold such information from the Court is to turn the legal system into more of a game than a search for truth and justice. I have no problem with a set of ethical rules, societal laws and constitutional rights, which seeks to protect the innocent from unfair prosecution and even to protect the guilty from abusive practices, but this must be balanced against society's interest in protecting its citizenry, enforcing the law and meting out justice. There has to be some difference between preventing law enforcement officers from beating information out of a suspect or illegally searching his premises, and officers of the Court actually withholding evidence that they are aware of, however obtained. I just don't see what interest was vindicated by concealing the existence and location of the two corpses. Were they revealed to law enforcement it would not negatively impact Garrow's access to a fair trial : if he did not kill them, he'd have nothing to fear. If he did, evidence from the bodies might well point towards him, but so what ? The essence of the legal process should be that impartial examination of the evidence reveal the culprit and that evidence be used to convince a jury of his guilt. The mere revelation of the bodies would not have sent Garrow to prison, he still would have been afforded all the legal protections of the trial system and his fate would have still depended on the judgment of a jury of his peers.

As I say, I would have acted differently than did Armani and Beige--I would have told the father where the bodies were, informed the Court of my action and resigned from the practice of law, accepting whatever punishment this action entailed. Then again, I never practiced, so that's easy for me to say. Further, I understand that many attorneys believe in the necessity of rules such as this and feel that they serve noble purposes. For that reason, I too would have exonerated these men. It is the professional code itself that leads lawyers to make these kind of decisions and we can hardly punish them for behaving ethically. But it does seem that ethics and morality diverge at points like this : one would prefer to see morality triumph over ethics. Regardless of how you come down on the issues involved, this book offers a fascinating look at how such issues and decisions play out in the real world and how they impact the people who have to deal with them.

GRADE : B+

This is a heartbreaking story for everyone involved, but while reading the book I understand more what attorneys must wrestle with when defending some criminals. It's easy for armchair quarterbacks to judge actions or non-actions of others, but at the time Armani felt he must do everything possible to represent Robert Garrow (as is Garrow's right and Armani's responsibility), no matter how despicable he is, in order to uphold professional code of conduct. Plea bargains for a lesser crime are very common, and it's not necessarily what those who seek retribution want, but it may be the way to ensure incarceration. The ethical and moral dilemma these lawyers came across is one that seems to me to be a matter of degree to what other lawyers must decide when defending a client. The book was well written and heartfelt to the families of the murdered girls, and I could feel his anguish.

This true crime work is apparently the only published account of the deadly career of Robert Garrow, a serial killer/rapist who terrorized the upstate New York/Adirondaks area in the early 1970s. Following an extensive manhunt throughout the Adirondaks, Garrow's capture led to a precedent setting trial in rural Herkimer County. Defended by Syracuse attorneys Francis Belge and Frank Armani, his subsequent conviction and ensuing escape from state prison proved the adage that truth is stranger then fiction. Co-authored by Attorney Armani, the book provides fascinating insider insights into the bizarre Garrow, the clever trial strategies, and the toil the case took on all parties. A real page turner, Privileged Information should be on every true crime aficionado's book shelf.

A good example of the true horrors in this world. Also a very good read for those who choose a career in law. I was fortunate enough to have Tom Alibrandi as an instructor while attending Imperial Valley College. I was able to hear firsthand of his experience writing this book and speaking with Frank Armani. Very compelling. This book is very well written and I would highly recommend it. The movie Sworn to Silence is based on this book, for those interested.

I had personally known Frank Armani for quite some time, and of course this whole event had completely changed his life forever... he's a good, decent man, and it was always quite obvious to me that he sincerely did what he believed he had to do. He didn't like the situation one bit, but he stuck with his principles despite the horrible things that doing so brought him.

Years after I met Frank, I finally read the book... which filled in a lot of the missing details for me. The book was, I thought, well-written and did properly portray the angst that this man felt while wrestling with that terrible issue.

I highly reccommend this book.

PRIVILEGED INFORMATION is a book about upper New York State serial killer and rapist Robert Garrow. Written by Tom Alibrandi and Frank Armani, one of Garrow's attorneys, the book discusses in considerable detail Garrow's upbringing, his crimes, and the dilemma faced by Armani and co-counsel Francis Belge while defending him against charges that he had murdered a young man. During the course of interviewing Garrow, the lawyers learned the locations of the bodies of two young women whom Garrow admitted to having previously murdered. This information led to a soul-wrenching ethical problem for Armani and Belge - did they follow the prescribed code of conduct regarding the confidentiality of client-attorney information or did they release the information regarding the young women thereby bringing closure to the young women's parents and following another prescribed duty of lawyers, as officers of the court, to uphold the law? This conflict is presented clearly and concisely.

The descriptions of Garrow's background, his crimes, and the lawyers' defense of Garrow are very well done and culminate in a uniquely fascinating courtroom scene. Alibrandi is an excellent writer, the book is fast paced and easy to read, and the research is solid and extensive.

There are three reasons that I would not rate this book 5 stars. First, in my opinion, there is too much boilerplate "personalizing information" about some of the players. For example, I don't care what lawyers, judges, bartenders, etc. are wearing. And it is made abundently clear early in the book that Armani is a heavy smoker. As such it is really not necessary to regularly report that "Armani lit up a cigarette."
Second there is no picture section in the book. I feel that one would have added to its enjoyment.
And finally, the book describes in some detail how Garrow's parents brutalized him to the point where he became little more than a paranoid if cunning animal. The authors state that included in their research were interviews with the parents, yet there is nothing detailing the results of these interviews in the book. Including this information would have made for an even better book.

Still, PRIVILEGED INFORMATION is very good true crime - well conceived, written, and researched and I highly recommend it to fans of the genre.

what happened could happen in any town. another example where the system failed many people.