Trepal v. State
2000 WL 263684, 754 So.2d 702 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant files a postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, they waive the attorney-client and work-product privileges for all materials relevant to that claim, including files from non-testifying, consulting experts.
Facts:
- George James Trepal's neighbors, the Carr family, received a threatening note telling them to move out.
- Shortly thereafter, members of the Carr household became mysteriously ill.
- Peggy Carr, one of the neighbors, died as a result of thallium poisoning after drinking a contaminated Coca-Cola.
- Investigators found several contaminated Coca-Cola bottles in the Carr residence.
- During his original trial preparation, Trepal's defense counsel employed an expert at Georgia Tech University to examine the scientific evidence related to the poisoning.
- Trepal's defense counsel never listed the Georgia Tech expert as a witness at trial, nor were the expert's findings or reports used in court.
Procedural Posture:
- George James Trepal was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in Polk County, Florida.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Trepal filed a postconviction motion under Rule 3.850, which the trial court denied.
- While an appeal of that denial was pending, the Florida Supreme Court relinquished jurisdiction to allow Trepal to file a new motion based on newly discovered evidence concerning FBI laboratory practices.
- Trepal filed an amended Rule 3.850 motion in the trial court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State used misleading scientific evidence.
- The State filed a motion to compel discovery, seeking reports and notes from the non-testifying expert that Trepal's trial counsel had consulted.
- The trial court granted the State's motion to compel discovery.
- Trepal appealed the trial court's nonfinal discovery order to the Florida Supreme Court.
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 defendant's postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel waive the attorney-client and work-product privileges for materials related to that claim, thereby allowing the State to compel discovery of a non-testifying expert's reports and notes?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a defendant's postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel waives the attorney-client and work-product privileges as to all information relevant to the claim. By filing a motion alleging ineffective assistance, a defendant puts their counsel's performance at issue, which entitles the State to discover information that can rebut those allegations. Citing its precedent in LeCroy v. State and Reed v. State, the court affirmed that such a waiver includes not only communications between the defendant and counsel but also materials relating to trial strategy ordinarily protected by the work-product doctrine. Since Trepal claimed that no adversarial testing of the scientific evidence occurred, the State is entitled to discover the reports and findings of the expert Trepal's counsel consulted to disprove this allegation. The court concluded that if the defendant believes the State is seeking irrelevant material, the proper remedy is to request an in-camera inspection by the trial court.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that the attorney-client privilege cannot be used as both a sword and a shield in postconviction proceedings. By establishing that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim constitutes a broad waiver of privilege, the court prevents defendants from hiding evidence that might undermine their claims and show that counsel's performance was, in fact, reasonable. The decision ensures that the State has a fair opportunity to rebut allegations against trial counsel by accessing the very files and strategic decisions that are being challenged. Additionally, the case is procedurally significant for establishing a mechanism for expedited interlocutory appeals of discovery orders in capital postconviction cases to prevent the irreparable harm of disclosing privileged information, even while ultimately finding no such harm occurred here.
