This case regarding the dilemma of the defending lawyer has similiarities to our mass murderer incident here in Norway jul. 22, 2011. The mass killer asked for Geir Lippestad to defend him, a man that was member of the Norwegian Labour Party, the political party he attacked that day.

I think our killer deserved the worst of torture, but it is very important that everybody get a fair trial where every step is followed 100%. If not, we push our common sense of ethics and morale in a negative direction. This is the spine for any developed and responsible country. I'm also against death penalty for the same reasons.

Lippestad did a great job defending and at the same perfectly balance his own views on the whole case in the media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geir_Lippestad

I think what makes this case so difficult is that it is clearly a case about justice under the law. The lawyer was trying to do the right thing under the law and for justice under the law, and in that he succeeded. What I think wasn't emphasized quite enough though was that it is so so difficult to see it a story of him complying with justice under the law, because when he found the buried bodies, he then already knew he was guilty. Yes as his lawyer it is still his job to protect him to the fullest, but he even admitted at that point it became about trying to reduce his sentence or get him a mental hospital. So why not try to reduce a clearly guilty man's sentence while allowing the bodies to be found and families to cope.
Though I should say, even with that statement, I actually agree with the law and with The lawyer following it under his duty as a lawyer. It was just such a bad crime and the guy was so guilty.

Larry Rice: You raised an excellent question as to why there was no action taken against the prosecutor. The entire situation would have been resolved immediately had his ego and his perceived personal political fears not prevented him from not making the plea deal with the defense attorneys. Had he publicly framed it as his duty to follow the law, it would have spared time, anguish and money and still had the life sentence he wanted.

I feel great compassion for the murdered girls mother. Not knowing how to deal with such a monumentally painful situation for over forty years is a terrible way to live. I hope that she can find the path to the end of that suffering.

THe download link is not working.

JPM. The kids who found the body say her leg was sticking up in the air from the knee to the foot when they found her. Their theory is that the lawyers moved her so she would be easier to find. It's plausible because they moved the head of Alicia Hauck back to her body for a photo.

I don't understand one thing. How did the kids playing near the mine vent find her body if the attorney needed to be held upside down to see her shoe? It seemed like something difficult to see, but a few kids playing near a very dangerous shaft found her easily. Seems strange.

Oscar, loved your comment. I laughed myself silly. I am SS/slavery guy, by the way, aka #1 on your list. Not sure if you ignored the point or just missed it entirely. Perhaps the discussion would not seem so asinine if you actually paid attention to what people are writing instead of going directly into attack mode. The point is about using the law to justify what would by most be considered morally wrong. (e.g Nuremberg defense) I thought the examples would make the point clear to the average person. You are apparently a special case.

1. We've got the guy who compares the defense attorneys to SS officers. Did the defense attorneys engineer a six-million person genocide? No. Then he goes into a slavery comparison. Did the defense attorneys claim ownership of a person, pay him/her no wages, and force him/her to do labor under threat of harm? No.

2. We've got the guy who goes on about this is the last Radiolab I'll ever listen to, because he thinks the show didn't cover each side equally. Does feeling bad for the victims and their families make you a fascist? No. Does it sacrifice one's journalistic integrity to express empathy for the victims? No. Did Radiolab advocate for rescinding the 5th and 6th amendments? No.

3. We've got the classic attorneys are scum comment. Okay, so this guy hates the defense attorneys for doing their legal duty. Does he hate the prosecutor who is trying his best to convict the killer? Does he hate the judge who remains impartial and ensures a fair trial? All attorneys, all of whom are upholding their side of justice. If any of them cave the whole thing falls apart and you've got a farce. I'm guessing this guy doesn't hate all attorneys, just the ones who aren't on his side.

I'm grateful for the show, the work they do, and for the folks here who made thoughtful, salient points. I believe the show was very even-handed and provoked discussion. The only disappointing part is how asinine much of that discussion is.

Heartbreaking.....simply hearbreaking. :(

Sorry, but this was about this guys ego. He himself answered the question "Why not make an anonymous tip?" His response was 'if I was going to do something I was going to do it openly'. So basically 'If I cant do it my way I'm not going to do it'. There was nothing to legally prevent him from making an anonymous tip. The bodies would eventually be found anyway. What he chose to do was morally wrong whether or not it was legal or not. Sorry to bring the Nazi's into this but, weren't all the SS soldiers just doing their legal duty? How about the plantation foremen who were ordered by their bosses to beat slaves senseless? Its pathetic for him to use the law to support and excuse his lack of common sense and morality. He had no problem using the information as a bargaining chip for what HE wanted. He could have just as easily bargained for less so that the information could be made available. That was his choice and his ego 100%.

I completely disagree with the attorneys and am disgusted by the actions they took. They owed their client legal representation and to make sure he got a fair trial. To take that and extrapolate it to helping him conceal evidence of his guilt is a gross perversion of justice. In this case once the lawyers KNEW there were dead bodies around, they should have reported it. They could have kept where they got the info to themselves. A criminal who is lucky, skilled, or rich shouldn't get away with crime.

Radiolab - love your podcast, but here you've omitted one of the most important reason why an ethical rule like this exists for attorneys. At the core here is that we, as a society, want people to speak openly with their attorneys. Why? So that people resolve their disputes through the justice system. If people don't trust their attorneys the whole system falls apart. We value this highly, above the rights of a parent in a specific case to know from a defense attorney where the body of her child is located. We value the justice system that aims to guarantee a fair trial, a fair process, and NOT a fair outcome (although a fair process is the best way we know how to try to achieve a fair outcome).

The more interesting debate is beyond the facts of this case. Do we like our justice system? Would we like the consequences of attorneys could break privilege on a subjective determination?

I disagree with Mrs. Armani's comparison of her husband to Atticus Finch. Atticus Finch defended Tom Robinson, an innocent man who faced overwhelming prejudice from a biased community. I think a better comparison of Mr. Armani and Mr. Belge would be to Clarence Darrow, who defended Nathan Leopold and Robert Loeb in the 1920's. Although not having the unique ethical dilemma of Armani and Belge, Darrow won life imprisonment for his clients by entering a plea of guilty and successfully arguing against giving them the death penalty.

However, for every Clarence Darrow, or real Atticuses like Bryan Stevenson, or even Armani and Belge, there are many more defense lawyers who either don't have the resources or the skill to protect their clients, innocent or guilty, from the apparatus of the state. There are even some defense attorneys, like Brendan Dassey's first, that actually collude with the state in incriminating their clients. I think there is such an imbalance in the availability of a quality defense in this country that the justice system is broken at both ends: two many guilty go free because they get the best defense possible, and two many innocent are imprisoned because they hardly get a defense at all.

I would love to see RadioLab do an episode on how we could reform our legal system. Is there a feasible alternative to our adversarial approach to criminal law? Is there a way to give juries more investigative powers, so that they are not merely blank slates to be molded by the prosecution or the defense? Could we embrace a system of restorative justice rather than retributive?

If even the most detested individuals do not receive a fair trial, including lawyer-client confidentiality, then the legal system has failed.

Make an exception for one, and you've created an exception for all.

Quimbys from California.I wanted to commend you on a very keen observation, which you wrote about in the second paragraph of your comment. It's possible, as I examine in my book, that Armani's co-counsel deliberately had Garrow confess on the stand in order to exculpate themselves. The pressure was mounting on them. As a side note, Armani physically attacked Belge back at their retreat after Garrow's testimony. Later Garrow unsuccessfully sued Armani and Belge and the district attorney - who was threatening the two defense lawyers during the trial for withholding the information - for $5 million because they had him confess on the stand to four murders and eight rapes.

I think what gets to me about people who feel the lawyers acted disgracefully is that most people do not understand our legal system. Nobody seems to want to know why it's that way. This is just another symptom as to why the fascism and oligarchy are becoming more and more welcome in this country. Our country was founded by people who felt we could govern ourselves and yet it's obvious we cannot when most people do not even know how government works, nor how our legal system work and most importantly why.

Final comment: I thought Armani and what's-his-name should have been disbarred not for attempting to keep their client's confidentiality, but for actually mistakenly betraying it during the most important part of the trial. For that he acted disgracefully and probably prejudiced the jury against himself and his client.

The part that bothers me is that, while interesting, the issue of attorney client privilege should not distract us from the systematic failure of the entire justice system. https://soundcloud.com/will-pflaum-1/phlogiston-34-on-law

I completely agree with the mother I don't think that lawyer should idolize what he did as a case of ethical law. What is legal and illegal is defined by society in the situation society has said that lawyer confidentiality should be exempted and then later on the laws were changed. I would argue The reason you felt uncomfortable was because he knew that what he was doing was unethical he should've had a less authoritarian approach to his thinking and recognized that the law should be updated to match the current standards and if he really felt uncomfortable about it he could disbarred himself he made a choice and his choice was out of greed.he admits as much when he says that he brings his friend in to try to grow his practice he was not trying to be ethical he was purely trying to be greedy and if he was trying to be ethical he did a poor job of it

I understand the reporter's need to wrap the story up but what was to be gained by interviewing the mother of one of the victims? Of course she is still distraught, of course she is going to condemn what the lawyers did. It was cheap sensationalist journalism, no better than the lazy TV reporter who asks "How do you feel?". That Robert Garrow escaped from prison and was shot to death by police in 1978 would have been a much better ending to an otherwise well told story.

My question is why was the prosecutor not sued or dis-barred. He clearly acted in his best interest to not accept the plea for an obviously mental defendant in order to not not look good in public. He obviously violated the law, moral, ethics, when he disclosed that the defense previously suggested the plea for mental application for information to the public, that would clearly have shortened the suffering of families, leading to significant professional injury to the defense council who decided to follow the law/ethics at great personal peril. Why is this politically-motivated ethics departure not taught in law school.

Please make a correction and give the biggest thanks to the mother of the murdered girl. Her contribution is most important.

The best RadioLab podcasts generate great debates and this one has done that brilliantly. This issue is deeply felt, no matter which side one is on. In the end, we all reach a point in life where we must self reflect and decide who we really are as individuals and what is the right thing to do. This podcast clearly shows how each one involved did just that. The two lawyers, the media, and, lastly the parent who was interviewed. But, let's not forget the moving end as the story teller, Brenna, walks up that steep and frozen hill, comments on the cold and mentions she wished she'd brought flowers, or something, and slowly walks away over cold crunching ground. It conveys the sadness and coldness we all feel deep within.

This is why I could never be a lawyer. It would break my soul.

Thank you so much for your riveting liberal bs Alexander Freedom, you have set all of us straight now that we've been corrected on what we've all believed to be what the "Founding Fathers" established our great nation on. Shut the F up. Enjoy voting for Hillary, too. This was a great story and RadioLab doesn't need your crap. Expel your weak negative energy on some computer games or some fat girlfriend, and leave them alone.

Anyways, I would have loved to hear more about Garrow's post-trial occurrences, and ensuing incarceration, and death. Part 2, please?!? Thank you for inspiring my inner investigator and making me read up on another great story of the violent "others" that roam the earth alongside you & I every day.

This was a great story -- thank you! I might have re-emphasized, when talking about teaching the confidentiality rule in law schools, that the rule is intended to implement a Constitutional right -- the 6th Amendment right to counsel when an individual is confronted with the power of the State trying to convict him or her (as the story noted early on). So the rule was not created for lawyers to "help clients," it was created by the Constitution to protect individuals. Even the most heinous criminals get Constitutional rights. If people have a problem with that, their problem is not with lawyers, it's with the Constitution.

Calling these lawyers heroes is a disgrace. You need to be evil to become a lawyer.

Nia The detective who sat in on the plea bargain, and refused to plea bargain, felt Garrow was a flight risk if placed in a mental home. The police and prosecution only had evidence to prosecute on the Domblewski murder, so if they agreed to the plea bargain they could not place him in maximum confinement. It proved prescient as Garrow later escaped prison.

I just don't get the moral dilemma here.
1. Lawyers should be required to provide a defense FOR THE CRIME OF WHICH THE CLIENT IS ACCUSED ONLY. Privileged communication applies to this and this only - not to all crimes ever committed by the defendant.
2. Revealing details about any new crimes should therefore NOT be covered by attorney client privilege. If the defendant makes a choice to do so their attorneys should be obligated to reveal this as officers of the court.
3. As a defendant you must now make a choice about what to tell your attorneys. If you feel the need to hide information about prior crimes, then those are the cards you play, your choice and you accept the consequences if it comes back to bite you.

Getting an attorney doesn't provide you with a partner in hiding criminal activity (the current bizarre moral judgement we currently apply). Its just legal counsel for defense against a specific accusation for criminey sakes, not some pinnacle of a platonic ideal. Its a job with rules, nothing more.

There is no moral dilemma here whatsoever. Jeez....just provide a defense to the charges, don't over-complicate this.

Juliana from Austin. You're correct. In the eyes of legal purist, no matter how you revealed the location of the bodies, without the client’s consent, it would be illegal, improper and might entitle the defendant to a dismissal of the charges against him for a violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. And what’s in it for Garrow?

I was left with a pressing question that wasn't addressed. Had the defense attorneys come forward with the bodies, wouldn't that have been inadmissible in court? And couldn't that technical misconduct on their part have comprised the case and led to a mistrial?

Excellent job bringing this viscerally upsetting dilemma to life and representing all sides fairly and with sensitivity. Also, great editing and sound work, which created an unmistakable sense of place: the Adirondacks. Please bring us more stories like this!

I can't go as far as Alexander above--I could never stop listening to Radiolab--but his core argument is correct. Attorney client privilege must be defended at all costs because the system MUST protect an innocent person who happens to get caught up in it, or it is not in any sense a justice system. Everyone with a heart feels for the parents of the murdered girls but this is not about protecting a "criminal", as the mother puts it near the end of the show. It's about protecting a person who is innocent until proven guilty. It's about protecting the system that affords all of us that right. I do feel this episode could have better presented the case for what Armani did, beyond just showing that lawyers celebrate him and it's taught in law schools. That's not compelling evidence to most people. Understanding that your ability to trust that your attorney won't sell you out if you're accused but innocent? That's something we should all relate to--and defend.

I can understand the lawyers when facing such a situation. But I can't imagine how the murder had experienced through his life from childhood to be an adult. This is a huge strategy and it's such a disaster for the family who lost their children. How could human beings be strong enough to avoid developing twisted soul and pursue the truth and kindness?

I think there's an unexamined piece of this ethical pie with the prosecutors. They didn't want to make any sort of deal because they knew "how big the case was going to be" (quoting from the narration not the prosecutor's words). They could have enabled the lawyers to reveal the locations. All lawyers (including prosecutors) share the duty to maintain confidentiality. I got the sense that their reasons for not striking a deal right away were based on personal reasons (not wanting to be seen as soft on a heinous murderer), power (not compromising in any way), politics and our incredibly messed up penal system that is based purely on punishment instead of rehabilitation. I'm not saying that Garrow could have ever returned to society but no one was suggesting that. Life in a mental institution is no different (though perhaps more comfortable) than jail. The only difference is blame but that's a construct of our society not a question of morals.

Legal question: the exception to attorney-client privilege at the time, as I understand it, was a scenario in which someone is in imminent danger of death or bodily injury. The parents of the murdered girls were suffering unbearable anguish. That kind of mental anguish can cause physical pain and long-term health problems. (For example, severe stress is linked to heart disease, among other things.) Could the prosecutors have made the case that the defense was obligated to disclose privileged information because of potential serious injury to the victims' parents?

Just a thought, and a convoluted one at that.

This was the last Radiolab episode I will ever listen to. It seems that Radiolab has teamed up with some of the other forces in our country in an attempt to bring fascism to America. Radiolab is playing the same game as others who are now calling to take away Constitutional Rights from citizens by playing on people's emotions. It is because America gives so many protections to our citizens when the government levies its full might against them that this great nation has stood while others crumble and are forced to start over. It is because we do not sacrifice the rights of the hated to mob justice that our country lives on. The day America gets to a point where all the government has to do is point its finger at you to silence you is the day we have lost our Democracy. The Founding Fathers knew that being called a criminal by the government would rally the majority of the credulous population against you. They knew that this was the easiest and widest door for tyranny to walk through. And thus they enshrined in the Bill of Rights certain protections to the criminally accused. They thought those protections so important that they dedicated more space in the Bill or Rights to the protections of the criminally accused than to any other issue. Freedom of Speech is given but a few words; protections of the criminally accused are given the full measure of the 4th, the 6th and 8th Amendments, and parts of the 5th. A citizen’s right to attorney, and confidences therein, are so fundamental to our justice system, that without those basic protections, our entire Democracy crumbles. Because, without those basic protections, all the government has to do is point their finger, and freedom is lost. The first thing fascist do is demonize the most despised citizens among us and call her protections against the government gross and imply they are unnecessary. Not in recent history has this great Country been so close to fascism. Some call for banning a Religion, some call for building a wall, some call Constitutional protections “gross.” It is easy to see why Robert Garrow is an enemy of humanity; it is harder to see why Robert Krulwich is but I assure you both are of equal existential threat. Both seek the same thing, to make every citizen a subject of tyranny; Garrow to his own tyranny, Krulwich to a future tyrant. Krulwhich’s tyranny is the more dastardly as he hides his under emotion, and seeks to destroy an entire country. Demonizing the rights of the unpopular and demonizing the rights of the rest is but degrees; a slippery slope that Radiolab has helped grease. Once we give up fighting for our Constitutional protections, all we have left is to fight each other.

one of the tags for this story is 'ethics' so i clicked the tag expecting to see related stories, but this was the only one. is this just me? cause 'worth' comes to mind as an episode soaked in ethics

Rebecca Losh, great question. One girl's head was 10 feet from her body when they found her. With the first girl, too much time had passed as she was stabbed on July 16 and the lawyers did not find her until Septmember. But they had a duty to call an ambulance if the victims were alive.
Jim Tracy
Twisted Soul

People believed to be dead have survived in the most implausible and bizarre situations, was it not incumbent upon the attorneys to engage immediately emergency medical professionals and only allow a coroner to make the determination?

Oh my god! This a true story? I can’t believe.