In Re Bexar County Criminal District Attorney's Office
2007 Tex. LEXIS 431, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 733, 224 S.W.3d 182 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's office does not waive its testimonial work-product privilege by voluntarily producing its prosecution file in a subsequent civil case. To overcome the privilege for non-core work product, the party seeking testimony must still demonstrate a substantial need and an inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of the material by other means without undue hardship.
Facts:
- David Crudup and Cynthia Blank were feuding neighbors who repeatedly complained about each other to the Bexar County Sheriff's Office.
- Cynthia Blank's teenage son, Travis, alleged that Crudup threatened to kill him.
- Following this complaint, the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office (DA's Office) charged Crudup with making terroristic threats.
- During the investigation, members of the DA’s Office interviewed Blank on several occasions.
- Assistant DA Robert McCabe warned Blank that the charges against Crudup would be dropped if she and Travis did not testify.
- Blank and Travis refused to testify at trial.
- As a result of their refusal to testify, the DA's Office dismissed the criminal charges against Crudup.
Procedural Posture:
- David Crudup sued Cynthia Blank for malicious prosecution in a Texas district court (trial court).
- Crudup served a subpoena on the DA's Office for its prosecution file, and the DA's Office complied.
- Crudup then subpoenaed three members of the DA's Office to testify at trial.
- The DA's Office filed a Motion to Quash and For Protective Order, asserting the work-product privilege.
- The trial court granted the DA’s motion, quashing the subpoenas.
- Crudup sought and was granted a writ of mandamus from the intermediate court of appeals, which ordered the trial court to withdraw its order.
- The DA’s Office and Blank (as relators) then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus to direct the court of appeals to vacate its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's office waive its testimonial work-product privilege by voluntarily disclosing its entire prosecution file in a subsequent malicious prosecution lawsuit, thereby obligating its prosecutors to testify about their mental processes and case preparation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Willett
No. A prosecutor's office does not waive its testimonial work-product privilege by disclosing its prosecution file. The work-product privilege protects an attorney's mental processes, conclusions, and legal theories, and this protection extends beyond the initial litigation. While producing the file waives the privilege for the documents themselves, it does not create a broader waiver obligating prosecutors to testify about their thoughts or case preparation. The testimony Crudup sought constitutes work product. To overcome the privilege for non-core work product, Crudup had to demonstrate both a 'substantial need' and the inability to obtain the 'substantial equivalent' without 'undue hardship.' Crudup failed this test because the desire to strengthen his case does not constitute 'substantial need,' and the prosecution file itself provided the 'substantial equivalent' of the testimony sought, detailing the reasons for the prosecution and its dismissal. Crudup could use the file, along with circumstantial evidence and other testimony, to prove his case.
Concurring - Justice Willett
This opinion agrees with the majority's reasoning and adds a practical, policy-based justification. A privilege must be predictable to be effective. If producing a case file automatically waived testimonial privilege, prosecutors would cease all cooperation to avoid being endlessly subpoenaed in civil suits. This would ultimately harm malicious prosecution plaintiffs by forcing them to litigate for every single document, wasting time and resources for everyone. The court's holding strikes a sensible balance that protects finite prosecutorial resources while allowing plaintiffs access to the necessary documentary evidence.
Dissenting - Justice Johnson
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by issuing a blanket order quashing the subpoenas without an evidentiary basis. The burden is on the party asserting a privilege, the DA's Office, to prove it applies, which it failed to do. The work-product privilege protects specific information, not people, and does not grant witnesses blanket immunity from testifying. By voluntarily producing the entire file, the DA's Office waived the privilege as to the file's contents, and prosecutors should be subject to questioning about those contents. The trial court's order was overly broad; it should have allowed testimony on non-privileged matters, such as facts learned during conversations with Blank, a non-party witness, instead of barring the witnesses entirely.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the prosecutorial work-product privilege in Texas, establishing a strong protection against compelled testimony. It holds that the waiver resulting from the disclosure of a prosecution file is narrow and does not extend to the prosecutors' mental impressions or trial strategy. This precedent protects prosecutorial resources from being diverted to civil litigation but also raises the bar for plaintiffs in malicious prosecution cases. Future litigants seeking such testimony must now meet the high standard of proving that the produced file is not the 'substantial equivalent' of the testimony they seek.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Bexar County Criminal District Attorney's Office