United States of America v. Donald L. Woodruff, a/k/a Chips
383 F. Supp. 696 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Communications between an attorney and client regarding the date, time, and place of a trial are not protected by the attorney-client privilege, as they are non-legal in nature and constitute a ministerial notification function performed by the attorney as an officer of the court.
Facts:
- Defendant Woodruff was free on bail while awaiting trial on criminal charges.
- Woodruff was represented by a public defender.
- On the scheduled day of his trial, Woodruff failed to appear in court.
- The government intended to seek an indictment against Woodruff for bail jumping.
- To prove Woodruff had notice of the trial, the government sought to compel Woodruff's attorney to testify about their communications regarding the trial date and time.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Woodruff failed to appear for his trial in the United States District Court.
- The U.S. Government filed a motion in the District Court to compel Woodruff's defense counsel to testify.
- The motion specifically requested that the attorney answer questions regarding whether he had advised Woodruff of the trial's time and place.
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 communications between a defense attorney and a client concerning the date and time of trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Green, District Judge
No, the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications between a defense attorney and a client concerning the date and time of trial. The court reasoned that such communications do not fall within the privilege because their purpose is not to secure legal advice or assistance. Instead, when relaying court dates, the attorney acts merely as a 'conduit' for the court, performing a non-legal, ministerial 'notice function.' Citing precedent from the Second and Tenth Circuits, the court emphasized that it is an attorney's duty as an officer of the court to relay such instructions, and this transmission is not a confidential communication. The information itself—the trial date—originates from the court, not from a confidential disclosure by the client. Therefore, compelling an attorney to testify about providing this notice does not violate the core purpose of the privilege, which is to encourage frank discussion for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the attorney-client privilege, clarifying that the privilege does not cover all communications between an attorney and client. By categorizing the notification of a trial date as a non-legal, ministerial function, the court establishes that the privilege's protection is tied to the substance and purpose of the communication—namely, the seeking or rendering of legal advice. This ruling has a direct impact on criminal defense practice, as it permits the government to use a defendant's own attorney as a witness against them in subsequent bail-jumping prosecutions. It forces attorneys to recognize that in performing certain duties as officers of the court, their communications may not be shielded from disclosure.
Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Donald L. Woodruff, a/k/a Chips