Englewood Criminal Law Blog

The Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that an inmate's phone call to relatives with instructions for his attorney does not fall under the protection of "attorney-client privilege". The court has found that, because the inmate knew that his calls were being recorded, he did not have a "reasonable expectation of confidentiality", and that he could have contacted his attorney directly without being monitored.

The ruling upheld the trial judge's decision to allow the inmate's recorded calls to be admitted into evidence by the prosecution, who sought to prove the inmate's "consciousness of guilt" of the drug crimes for which he stood accused.

The prosecution maintained that, when Joel Rodriguez phoned his sister and gave her instructions to pass along to his defense attorney regarding his desire to plead guilty to drug charges prior to indictment, he did so with full knowledge that the conversation would be recorded. Because the sister was not a "necessary intermediary", they argued that privilege was not applicable.

Defense attorneys argued that, because the conversation dealt with "key attorney duties" such as plea negotiations, it was covered by attorney-client privilege. The appeals panel disagreed, and felt that the inmate should have contacted his attorney directly, or simply asked his sister to convey a message to the attorney stating that he wished to discuss a plea.

Emailing your attorney from a work email address may not be a good idea, according to a recent ethics opinion from the American Bar Association. In a recent interview on NPR, legal ethics expert Diane Karpman outlined the conflicts between attorney-client privilege and an employer's expectation of access to their employees' correspondence.

"Clients have an amazing privilege in the United States that anything they tell their lawyer will forever remain confidential. But they cannot be cavalier or casual with that amazing privilege. So, say if you were in Yankee Stadium and you had a talk with your lawyer, and everyone is listening in. Well, then you couldn't claim privilege because you didn't have an expectation of confidentiality. And that is the basis of the privileges that you expected, or you believed it would be privileged."

Using an account owned and managed by an employer leaves the client vulnerable, according to Karpman. The employer may obtain any communication between the client and the attorney done through such an account, and courts have been allowing the communication into evidence. In cases where an employee uses a private account, such as Gmail or Yahoo, but accesses it on company-owned equipment, the courts are carefully assessing various factors, such as who owns the server. Since an employer would not be expected to know an employee's account information and passwords on a privately held account, that communication would be more difficult to get admitted into evidence.

Karpman recommends caution when communicating with your attorney from your place of work, especially when company policy stipulates that employee emails are not confidential. "With all the warnings that you got, it was almost as if you were consulting with your lawyer in the employee lunchroom over a microphone, in a loud voice, with the door wide open."

In Norwood, Colorado, two to three men allegedly raided a medical marijuana dispensary. According to police reports, the men held three individuals against their will by binding them with duct tape and threatening to kill them if they tried to contact the police. All three victims were subjected to multiple forms of assault. The alleged robbers took thousands of dollars and a large amount of marijuana. According to the men who were stolen from, both robbers were carrying what they believed to be automatic weapons.

Two of the men who were attacked recalled the incident to the police. One of the men had recently fallen asleep. He awoke to a dog barking and went outside to see what the noise was about. As he did so, he was confronted by the two alleged robbers. He said they were dressed in hunting gear and wore masks over their faces.

A 13-year-old boy from Burlington, Colorado, has been accused of shooting his parents and stabbing two of his younger siblings. The parents were found dead in March, and the two siblings were severely injured but managed to survive.

The 13-year-old boy, whose name has not been disclosed because of his age, has decided to plead guilty to the murder of his parents. The district attorney said that because the boy had no history of criminal activity, he will not be charged as an adult. This eliminated any possibility that he would be sentenced to life in prison.