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

defendantattorneydiscoveryappealtrialcircumstantial evidenceattorney-client privilege
defendantattorneyappealattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509
View Case »
Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093, 14 Fed.R.Serv.2d 490, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,759, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,819
View Case »
Toshiba America Electronic Components v. Superior Court, 124 Cal.App.4th 762, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,661, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,401
View Case »
Wemark v. State, 602 N.W.2d 810
View Case »
Hayes v. Central States Orthopedic Specialists, Inc., 51 P.3d 562, 2002 OK 30
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State v. von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995, 47 A.L.R.4th 455

Facts

Claus von Bulow was indicted for attempting to murder his wife after she was found in a comatose state. The investigation was initiated by Martha's family, who suspected Claus of poisoning her. Evidence included a black bag containing vials and syringes found in Claus's possession, which led to the discovery of insulin and other drugs. The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged crimes.

On December 21, 1980, Martha von Bulow was found in a comatose state on her bathroom floor in the family's Newport home—Clarendon Court.

Issue

Whether the trial justice erred in denying defendant access to certain materials in the possession of the attorney hired by the family and whether the results of tests performed on the contents of the black bag should have been excluded due to lack of a search warrant.

The defendant raises several issues on appeal to this court. We find two of them to be dispositive.

Rule

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and their attorney, but can be waived through disclosure to third parties. The work-product privilege can also be waived if selectively used to assist the prosecution.

The attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure only the confidential communications between a client and his or her attorney.

Analysis

The court found that the attorney-client privilege was waived when the attorney disclosed information to the state police with the clients' consent. The court also determined that the warrantless search and testing of the contents of the black bag violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, as the search was not conducted with a warrant.

These facts clearly indicate that the disclosure of information to the State Police by Kuh was made with the consent of his clients.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the violations of the defendant's rights regarding attorney-client privilege and unlawful search.

Vacated and remanded.

Who won?

Claus von Bulow prevailed in the appeal due to the court's findings on the waiver of attorney-client privilege and the unlawful search, which undermined the prosecution's case.

Claus von Bulow prevailed in the appeal due to the court's findings on the waiver of attorney-client privilege and the unlawful search.

You must be