Quick Summary
The California Supreme Court addressed whether evidence obtained through privileged attorney-client communication can be admitted if defense counsel alters or removes physical evidence. The court upheld the conviction, ruling that such privilege does not extend to observations from altered evidence.
Facts of the Case
Michael Meredith and Frank Earl Scott were implicated in David Wade’s murder and robbery. Meredith was accused of killing Wade, while Scott allegedly conspired with him. After the crime, Scott told his attorney, James Schenk, about taking Wade’s wallet from the scene, attempting to burn it, and then disposing of it in a barrel behind his house.
Schenk hired an investigator who retrieved the wallet based on Scott’s information and handed it over to Schenk. Schenk then provided it to the police without revealing its source. The location of this wallet was critical as it linked Scott to the crime scene. During trial proceedings, Schenk was compelled under threat of contempt to admit that he learned about the wallet’s location from Scott.
The defense argued that since this information was obtained through privileged communication, it should be inadmissible in court. Despite this argument, during trial, the investigator testified about finding the wallet at Scott’s residence, leading to convictions for both defendants.
Procedural History
- The police arrested Michael Meredith and Frank Earl Scott for Wade’s murder and robbery.
- Steven Frick testified about finding Wade’s wallet at Scott’s residence.
- Schenk was subpoenaed and initially refused to disclose information about the wallet due to attorney-client privilege.
- Under threat of contempt, Schenk disclosed learning about the wallet’s location from Scott.
- The defense moved in limine to prevent testimony about the wallet by Schenk or Frick; this motion was denied.
- The trial court admitted Frick’s testimony despite objections from the defense.
- Scott and Meredith were convicted of first-degree murder and robbery.
- Scott appealed his conviction, citing improper admission of privileged communication-derived evidence.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether testimony regarding evidence discovered through privileged attorney-client communication should be admissible when defense counsel alters or removes physical evidence
Rule of Law
A client has a privilege under Evidence Code section 954 to refuse disclosure of confidential communications between client and lawyer.
An exception exists if defense counsel’s actions prevent law enforcement from observing physical evidence in its original condition or location.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court evaluated whether testimony derived from privileged communications can be admitted if defense counsel removes or alters physical evidence. Attorney-client privilege encourages open dialogue between clients and lawyers but does not protect observations derived from altered evidence if it hinders law enforcement investigations.
Since Schenk’s investigator removed the wallet from its original site, preventing independent discovery by law enforcement, admitting such testimony was deemed appropriate. The court decided that allowing defense attorneys to remove crucial evidence would unjustly obstruct justice by impeding prosecution efforts to gather necessary facts independently.
Conclusion
The California Supreme Court affirmed Scott’s conviction, determining that while attorney-client privilege covers communications, it does not extend to observations arising when physical evidence is altered or removed by defense counsel.
Key Takeaways
- Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications but not when physical evidence is altered or removed by defense counsel.
- Defense counsel’s actions preventing law enforcement from discovering evidence independently can lead to admissibility of testimony regarding the evidence.
- The court seeks to prevent undue advantage to defense counsel that might obstruct prosecution efforts.
Relevant FAQs of this case
References
Was this case brief helpful?