ILNews

COA: lawyer-client privilege protects information

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant's belief that his right to seek exculpatory evidence trumps the attorney-client privilege is incorrect, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Rusty R. Skinner v. State of Indiana, No. 55A01-0811-CR-543, Rusty Skinner sought to compel his prior attorney to provide information that would allegedly impeach witness Jason Wingler's testimony. Wingler was expected to testify that Skinner told him information that would be contrary to Skinner's self-defense claim. Skinner faced charges of attempted murder, robbery, carjacking, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated for attacking a man and taking his property and car.

Skinner's attorney previously had represented Wingler, so he knew of information materially adverse to Wingler. Skinner's attorney filed a motion to withdraw upon learning Wingler was called to testify, which the court granted.

Skinner, through his new attorney, filed a motion to compel his previous attorney to provide the alleged evidence that would impeach Wingler's credibility. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals accepted Skinner's interlocutory appeal.

For information sought in a criminal case to be properly discoverable, the factors of particularity, relevance, and paramount interest in nondisclosure must be balanced. In this case, the paramount interest is the attorney-client privilege. Attorneys aren't required to testify regarding confidential communications made to them during the course of their professional business unless the testimony would meet one of the six exceptions under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.

The information sought by Skinner doesn't fall under any of those exceptions, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey. In addition, Skinner has access to other information that could help him impeach Wingler, such as Wingler's criminal history of crimes of dishonesty and that Wingler is asking for a guaranteed sentence modification in exchange for his testimony.

"Based on the relevance of the material, its availability from other sources, and the nature and importance of any interests invaded, we conclude that the information sought is not discoverable due to the protection provided by the attorney-client privilege," the judge wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT