Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

defendantattorneytrialtestimonywitness testimonyprivileged communicationadmissibility
appealtrialtestimonyprivileged communicationadmissibility

Related Cases

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123, 54 USLW 4194
View Case »
Kilpatrick v. Wiley, Rein & Fielding, 909 P.2d 1283
View Case »
Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal.App.4th 930, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5507, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6551, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7523, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8931
View Case »
In re Discipline of Laprath, 670 N.W.2d 41, 2003 S.D. 114
View Case »
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652, 53 USLW 4587, 1985-2 Trade Cases P 66,645
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People v. Meredith, 29 Cal.3d 682, 631 P.2d 46, 175 Cal.Rptr. 612

Facts

On April 3, 1976, David Wade was murdered, and his wallet was later found in a trash can behind Scott's residence. Scott had previously informed his attorney about the wallet's location, and the defense investigator retrieved it from the trash can. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence regarding the wallet's location, which became a crucial point in the trial. The defendants were found guilty based on the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimony against Meredith.

Scott himself had told his former counsel that he had taken the victim's wallet, divided the money with Meredith, attempted to burn the wallet, and finally put it in the trash can.

Issue

Whether the observation by the defense investigator regarding the location of the victim's wallet, which was the product of a privileged communication, could be admitted as evidence.

The admissibility of that evidence comprises the principal issue on this appeal.

Rule

An observation by defense counsel or his investigator, which is the product of a privileged communication, may not be admitted unless the defense has precluded the prosecution from making that same observation by altering or removing physical evidence.

An observation by defense counsel or his investigator, which is the product of a privileged communication, may not be admitted unless the defense by altering or removing physical evidence has precluded the prosecution from making that same observation.

Analysis

The court determined that the defense's removal of the wallet from the trash can frustrated the prosecution's ability to discover it. Since the defense investigator's observation of the wallet's location was a direct result of the privileged communication, the court concluded that the prosecution was entitled to present evidence regarding the wallet's location, as the defense's actions had effectively nullified the privilege.

The conduct of the defense thus precluded the prosecution from ascertaining the crucial fact of the location of the wallet.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the convictions, modifying the judgment to reflect that the defendants could only be punished for the most serious offense, first-degree murder, while the robbery conviction's execution was stayed.

Judgment modified as affirmed.

Who won?

The prosecution prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the admissibility of evidence regarding the wallet's location, which was crucial to the convictions.

The prosecution was entitled to present evidence to show the location of the wallet in the trash can; the trial court did not err in admitting the investigator's testimony.

You must be