Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneysubpoenatrialappellantgrand jury

defendantattorneyappealtrialappellantgrand jury

Related Cases

In re Original Grand Jury Investigation, 89 Ohio St.3d 544, 733 N.E.2d 1135, 2000 -Ohio- 170

Facts

Appellant Jeffrey Helmick was the lead defense counsel for Douglas Coley in a capital trial. During the trial, an investigator discovered a threatening letter written by Coley, which was given to Helmick by Coley's mother. The letter contained threats against others, prompting Helmick to seek advice on whether he had an obligation to report it. After reporting the matter to the court and police, Helmick received a subpoena to produce the letter but refused, leading to a contempt finding by the trial court.

Appellant Jeffrey Helmick was lead defense counsel representing defendant Douglas Coley in a capital trial. During the trial, an investigator retained by Helmick discovered the existence of a threatening letter. The letter, which was written by Coley to his brother, was in the possession of Coley's mother, Victoria Coley.

Issue

Whether an attorney can be compelled to disclose to the grand jury a letter written by a client that contains evidence of a possible crime, or whether the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits such disclosure.

The issue presented in this case is whether an attorney can be compelled to disclose to the grand jury a letter written by a client and discovered by an investigator that contains evidence of a possible crime or whether the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits such disclosure.

Rule

An attorney may disclose a client secret if permitted under the Disciplinary Rules or required by law or court order, particularly when the disclosure is necessary to prevent a crime or is mandated by a subpoena.

DR 4–101(C)(2) provides that an attorney may reveal '[c]onfidences or secrets when permitted under Disciplinary Rules or required by law or court order.'

Analysis

The court determined that the letter constituted a client 'secret' as it contained information detrimental to the client and was obtained in the professional relationship. However, the court also found that the attorney had a legal obligation to comply with the grand jury subpoena and disclose the letter, as the exception in the Disciplinary Rules allowed for such disclosure when required by law.

The court of appeals found that the letter was not a secret because it was not information gained in the professional relationship. Instead, the court said that the letter was simply physical evidence, which needed to be disclosed to the authorities.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the appellate decision, ordering Helmick to relinquish the letter to the grand jury and vacating the civil contempt finding on the condition that he comply with the subpoena.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and order appellant to relinquish the letter in question to the grand jury.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case as the court upheld the requirement for Helmick to disclose the letter to the grand jury, emphasizing the importance of public safety and the administration of justice.

The court also imposed an ongoing daily fine of $25 until he complied with the order.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 851 P.2d 556

F.T.C. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 778 F.3d 142, 414 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 2015-1 Trade Cases P 79,073, 90 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1415, 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1017

Poling v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., 212 W.Va. 589, 575 S.E.2d 199

People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3d 142, 599 P.2d 587, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281

In re Roots’ Estate, 596 S.W.2d 240