Case Analysis : Attorney Client Communication

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

Hey, Larry, did you know a defendant who elects to proceed pro se embarks on the investigation of both the facts and law pertinent to the prosecution's case against him or her; therefore, the pro se defendant's work, such as legal and research documents, protected by the work product privilege from the prosecutors will attempt to obtain disclosure. (Aprile, 2016) A work product doctrine rules safeguard materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from discovery by opposing counsel. (Reuters, 2017) In a criminal case, a defendant who files an appeal for a new trial after being convicted and sentence proceeds to pro se; the prosecutors can secure a search warrant to seize the papers and computer files of from the defendant albeit in an apparently

The lawyer’s presentations to the court will determine the fact with a trial judge or jury and relate it to the law to reach a decision before judgment is entered. Decision will base entirely upon material introduced by parties. Although individuals are free to represent

Defendant argues that Congress did not mean to include defense attorneys in 18 U.S. Code § 1001 since defense attorneys have a duty to their client of loyalty. This duty would stop defense attorneys from revealing confidential information without the consent of their client. As a result, defendant argues, there has to be an exception for defense attorneys in court as they represent criminal defendants. Defendant argues the court to judicially make acceptance of 18 U.S. Code § 1001 for defense attorneys as they represent criminal defendants.

Work–Product Doctrine: The right to protects materials prepared in anticipation of an law suit during the discovery phase by the defendant. Also, pro se' persons are entitled to work product immunity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) which states that documents produced by non-attorneys may also enjoy work product privilege. In Lohman v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal. App. 3d 90 [146 Cal. Rptr. 171] the pro se litigant invoked his rights not as a client but rather as one performing the functions of an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), prevents discovery of materials prepared “in anticipation of litigation” unless there is ‘‘substantial need’’ for the information and the material cannot obtain s without

An expert witness also has the privilege to offer opinions. Furthermore, they question examinees and not patients or clients. He does not form any working relationship with the subjects (Strasburger, Gutheil, & Brodsky, 1997, p.448).

According to Pollock, (2017) judged and prosecutors are prohibited from discussing cases outside the presence of another attorney. This is a violation called ex parte communications, it is prohibited because it gives one side preference over the other.

of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or

The work product doctrine is a limitation on discoverable material allowed to be used during litigation. It protects certain materials that have been prepared in anticipation of litigation of being discovered by the opposing counsel. It is necessary that an attorney be able to work with a certain level of privacy and not have his work be sought out to scrutiny and discovery by opposing counsel. In an example of a case Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, (nationalparalegal.edu) the attorney’s notes were sought out by the opposing counsel in reference to a boat sinking, however in performing his various notes and compiling his defense the attorney had also placed his own personal theories and plans for strategy within his notes. The courts ultimately

Criminal cases encompass a limited allowance of pretrial discovery proceedings similar to those in municipal situations, with substantial restrictions to protect the persona of government informants and to prevent intimidation of observers. The lawyers furthermore may document motions, which are requests for rulings by the court before the trial. For example, protecting against lawyers often document a shift to suppress clues, which inquires the court to omit from the trial clues that the defendant believes was obtained by the government in violation of the defendant's legal privileges.

     Once the discovery process is completed, the Enlisting of Experts process is required. The plaintiff early in the pre-trial process to determine whether he has a viable claim must obtain this expert. The defendant will also obtain an expert to support the defendant’s theory of the case and refute the plaintiff’s expert. After sufficient discovery has been made and experts are in place, either party may move for summary judgment. If the material at hand shows that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact, the court may rule and motion that there is no need for a formal trial. When either party

Discovery is a sign of this cooperation. Discovery in criminal court proceedings is where the prosecution gives the defense any known evidence that may clear the defendant and obtained witness statements. Both sides are there to mediate and seek justice for each their own side. “All court personnel, including the accused’s own lawyer, tend to be co-opted to become agent-mediators who help the accused redefine his situation and restructure his perceptions concomitant with a plea of guilty. ”(Cole & Gertz, Module 4, page 297).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1938 directs that in civil proceedings prosecution and defense counsel must disclose all pertinent information in a case unless that information is privileged, such as attorney client privilege, spouse testimony or work product. In comparison, the Constitution does not provide the right of discovery in Federal criminal cases set forth in Weatherford v. Bursey, 1977. This is because releasing too much prosecution information to the defense, trial strategy for instance, will provide them with an imbalance of information thus allowing the defense to take advantage. Federal Rules 12, 16, 26 say if defense submits a pretrial motion then discovery will be provided for tangible evidence such as papers, books, and recordings

However, there are well founded concerns. Regardless of who counsel is, the absence of the accused person will, according to Gardner, “hamper the ability