People v. Meredith
29 Cal. 3d 682, 631 P.2d 46, 175 Cal. Rptr. 612 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attorney-client privilege does not protect observations of the location or condition of physical evidence made as a result of a confidential client communication if the defense counsel, or their agent, removes or alters that evidence.
Facts:
- Michael Meredith told Frank Earl Scott that he planned to rob David Wade and asked Scott to help lure Wade out of a club.
- After Scott relayed the message, Meredith attacked and shot Wade to death outside the club.
- Scott later confidentially disclosed to his attorney, James Schenk, that he had taken the victim's wallet from the crime scene.
- Scott told Schenk that after taking money from the wallet, he attempted to burn it and then threw it in a trash can behind his house.
- At Schenk's direction, defense investigator Steven Frick went to the location described by Scott.
- Frick retrieved the partially burnt wallet from the trash can and brought it to Schenk.
- Schenk examined the wallet and its contents before turning it over to the police.
Procedural Posture:
- The prosecution subpoenaed Scott's former attorney, James Schenk, and his investigator, Steven Frick, to testify at a preliminary hearing.
- Over privilege objections, the trial court compelled Frick to testify that he found the victim's wallet in a trash can behind Scott's residence.
- A jury subsequently convicted both Frank Scott and Michael Meredith of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery.
- Scott and Meredith, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to resolve the novel attorney-client privilege issue.
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 the attorney-client privilege protect an observation of the location of physical evidence made by a defense investigator when that observation is the product of a privileged communication, and the investigator subsequently removes the evidence, thereby precluding the prosecution from discovering it?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
No. When defense counsel removes or alters physical evidence discovered through a privileged client communication, the attorney-client privilege does not bar testimony about the original location or condition of that evidence. The court reasoned that while the privilege protects confidential communications to encourage full disclosure from clients, it cannot be used to conceal or destroy evidence. By taking possession of the wallet, the defense investigator frustrated any possibility that the police might discover it in the trash can. To extend the privilege in such a case would allow the defense to 'destroy' critical information about the evidence's location. Therefore, the act of removing the evidence constitutes a tactical choice that waives the privilege concerning its original location and condition.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant exception to the attorney-client privilege concerning physical evidence. It creates a bright-line rule that forces a difficult tactical decision upon defense attorneys who learn of incriminating evidence through client communications. The ruling balances the policy of protecting client confidentiality with the competing public interest in preventing the active concealment of evidence. This precedent directly impacts how defense attorneys conduct investigations, requiring them to weigh the benefits of examining evidence against the consequence of having to disclose its original location and condition if they disturb it.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Meredith