All things Cynthia Baldwin

[Rlaub44]

Apparently, our discussions here are mirror those of the trial participants: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/11/...-attorney.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

On a bit of personal note, I am quite grateful to Rlaub44 for raising some of these questions. They made me think and look at the presentment again and this is a very good example of solid, decorous, and sane discussion. :great:

Thanks - I have also really enjoyed the civil discussion, and I've learned a lot in the process.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks - I have also really enjoyed the civil discussion, and I've learned a lot in the process.

I hope you continue to enjoy it.

Your point about there being an attorney-client relationship is valid. The information that she gave is not privileged, however.

 

[Salem]

I have enjoyed it also! I can't believe it has been 4 days since I checked in here. Thanks to you both!

As Thanksgiving is here and I have a house full, it will probably be another 4 days before I'm back - but I will keep checking for updates.

Salem

 

[Rlaub44]

Did I miss something, or did the P-N make a mistake? In a recent article about Curley and Schultz trying to block her testimony, this appeared:

Curley and Schultz countered in papers filed Tuesday that they believed Baldwin was representing them in the run-up to their grand jury testimony in January 2011, so any testimony from Baldwin on her dealings with them should be barred.

Baldwin actually did state she was representing the administrators in the grand jury room, but she has since clarified that her primary duty was to Penn State.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/11/post_473.html#incart_river_default

Everything I have read from her supporters indicates that she made it clear at the GJ that she did not represent the administrators - I would love to know where this reporter found this information.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Curley & Schultz said it, but there was not an indication she said it. According to the presentment, she indicated that she represented Penn State.

 

[costalpilot]

She seems to, prior to the grand jury session. I would presume that they were present.

im pretty sure the quote meant DURING the proceedings. its an IMPORTANT point. when they were asked FOR THE RECORD.

imo all this legal goobilldegoop reflects the problems with our judicial system.....in a legal proceedings, a lawyer sits next to a person being questioned, who identifys the lawyer as being his council, the lawyer enters and leaves with the person, in this grand jury proceeding it is UNUSUAL for third parties (other than witnesses and their attys) to be present,

despite all this, lawyers argue with a straigth face whether or not the atty represented the men. because when it all goes south, the atty SAYS she didnt represent them.

if she was there as an observor, why did she next next to them? why didnt she sit somewhere else? dont atty's sit next to their clients because they might need to CONFER with them.

 

[Rlaub44]

Curley & Schultz said it, but there was not an indication she said it. According to the presentment, she indicated that she represented Penn State.

That's what I recalled, so seeing this in print was quite a surprise. It must have been a mistake by the reporter.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

im pretty sure the quote meant DURING the proceedings. its an IMPORTANT point. when they were asked FOR THE RECORD.

imo all this legal goobilldegoop reflects the problems with our judicial system.....in a legal proceedings, a lawyer sits next to a person being questioned, who identifys the lawyer as being his council, the lawyer enters and leaves with the person, in this grand jury proceeding it is UNUSUAL for third parties (other than witnesses and their attys) to be present,

My understanding is that she was in the room, but not sitting beside Curley or Schultz, consulting with them. She was present.

 

[Twindad]

"Mr. Spanier and Cynthia Baldwin gave a briefing lasting under an hour regarding the status of the grand jury investigation but limited by the rules of grand jury secrecy," Mr. Davis said. "That means Cynthia Baldwin could not divulge anything about the content of individual testimony."
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...dusky-grand-jury-in-may-218077/#ixzz2DXWaEMod

David added, “As general counsel, she felt a responsibility to represent and understand — for the university’s interests — their testimony.” http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...state_legal_counsel_cynth.html?mobRedir=false

Lanny Davis says she can't divulge anything about individual testimony. If she were to do so isn't this illegal?
Is Judge Barry Feudale also responsible to see there is no conflict of interest?

 

[Twindad]

http://034fccc.netsolhost.com/WordP...l-Motion-with-Exhibits-and-Verification-1.pdf

19. At the administration of the oath before the supervising judge, the following exchange took place:
Prosecutor:
Judge: Ms. Baldwin:
Judge: Ms. Baldwin: Judge:
Judge, we’re here on Notice 29. We have some witnesses to be sworn, Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz.
Represented by?
My name is Cynthia Baldwin, general counsel for Pennsylvania State University.
Will you be providing representation for both of those identified witnesses?
Gary is retired but was employed by the university and Tim is still an employee.
Good morning . . .
Exhibit C. 20. When Mr. Curley was questioned by Eshbach at the outset of his grand jury
testimony, the following exchange took place: Q. Would you please introduce yourself to the Grand Jury?
4
A. Good morning, My name is Tim Curley. Q. You have counsel with you? A. Yes, I do. Q. Would you introduce her, please?
A. My counsel is Cynthia Baldwin. Exhibit D at 2.
21. Later during his testimony, Attorney Eshbach directed Mr. Curley “with [your] counsel” to step outside the grand jury room for a moment. Exhibit D at 7.
22. Ms. Baldwin allowed the judge and Mr. Curley to believe that she was Mr. Curley’s unencumbered, conflict-free lawyer. The conflict now plainly apparent left Mr. Curley with no counsel during the grand jury proceeding in violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4549(c)(1).

If I were there, I would have come to the conclusion she represented Mr. Curley.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If I were there, I would have come to the conclusion she represented Mr. Curley.

It is interesting, but it might be irrelevant. I think these might be the key points:

1. If the attorney is aware that their client is in the process of committing a crime, e.g. is committing perjury, that might void the privilege.

2. If the attorney is considered part of the crime he/she could not hide behind privilege.

 

[StellarsJay]

The Upjohn Warning: America Bar report.
http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/CR301000/newsletterpubs/ABAUpjohnTaskForceReport.pdf

Apparently Baldwin told Curley et al a little of this but not very clearly, according to reports that quote her as saying approximately, "I represent the university, you can get your own lawyer." Upjohn makes it surprisingly clear that whatever they told her can be released at the University's discretion, not hers or theirs.

 

[Rlaub44]

The Upjohn Warning: America Bar report.
http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/CR301000/newsletterpubs/ABAUpjohnTaskForceReport.pdf

Apparently Baldwin told Curley et al a little of this but not very clearly, according to reports that quote her as saying approximately, "I represent the university, you can get your own lawyer." Upjohn makes it surprisingly clear that whatever they told her can be released at the University's discretion, not hers or theirs.

Thanks for posting this - it is very informative. I found the section beginning on pg 15 about concurrent representation particularly helpful.

"Likewise, a court has determined that relationship exists when the Constituent identifies the lawyer as his counsel to outsiders and the attorney does not clarify his role."​

. . .
"The formation of an attorney-client relationship between the Constituent and corporate counsel hinges on the reasonable belief of the Constituent and the attorney’s actions in light of that belief."

These quotes from your link above support the theory that Ms. Baldwin may not be as in the clear as her attorney would like us to believe.

 

[Twindad]

If Cynthia Baldwin made it clear she represented only PSU as general counsel, that would have left Curley, Shultz and Spanier without legal representation at the GJ. Why would a judge allow this to happen? Is Baldwin just trying to cover her a#$? Is this a set up of the three in an attempt cover others a@#@#? Is it more complicated than it appears? She was recommended for the position by Spanier and by all reports she was working with him to cover up/minimize the situation to the very university she now professes to represent. Maybe when she saw the writing on the wall she switched sides.

 

[Rlaub44]

If Cynthia Baldwin made it clear she represented only PSU as general counsel, that would have left Curley, Shultz and Spanier without legal representation at the GJ. Why would a judge allow this to happen? Is Baldwin just trying to cover her a#$? Is this a set up of the three in an attempt cover others a@#@#? Is it more complicated than it appears? She was recommended for the position by Spanier and by all reports she was working with him to cover up/minimize the situation to the very university she now professes to represent. Maybe when she saw the writing on the wall she switched sides.

All good questions.

Remember too that the only version we have heard about these events so far is Baldwin's herself. The attorneys for Curley and Schultz have indicated that they disagree with how things happened, and I am certain that there will be more released in the lead-up to trial clarifying the administrators' memories of Baldwin's involvement.

I do believe, at first, Baldwin and Spanier circled the wagons with Curley and Schultz. Paterno was the odd man out, as he lawyered up separately and didn't testify to the party line, so he had to be hung out to dry to save the others. As things fell further, Baldwin IMO turned on the other three, leading to her grand jury testimony.

There is such a different tone from the Freeh Commission, which called Baldwin's representation "seriously deficient", to the Grand Jury presentment, which painted her as the only competent person of the bunch (again, based on her own testimony), that one wonders what the truth is about her actions.

 

[costalpilot]

http://034fccc.netsolhost.com/WordP...l-Motion-with-Exhibits-and-Verification-1.pdf

19. At the administration of the oath before the supervising judge, the following exchange took place:
Prosecutor:
Judge: Ms. Baldwin:
Judge: Ms. Baldwin: Judge:
Judge, we’re here on Notice 29. We have some witnesses to be sworn, Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz.
Represented by?
My name is Cynthia Baldwin, general counsel for Pennsylvania State University.
Will you be providing representation for both of those identified witnesses?
Gary is retired but was employed by the university and Tim is still an employee.
Good morning . . .
Exhibit C. 20. When Mr. Curley was questioned by Eshbach at the outset of his grand jury
testimony, the following exchange took place: Q. Would you please introduce yourself to the Grand Jury?
4
A. Good morning, My name is Tim Curley. Q. You have counsel with you? A. Yes, I do. Q. Would you introduce her, please?
A. My counsel is Cynthia Baldwin. Exhibit D at 2.
21. Later during his testimony, Attorney Eshbach directed Mr. Curley “with [your] counsel” to step outside the grand jury room for a moment. Exhibit D at 7.
22. Ms. Baldwin allowed the judge and Mr. Curley to believe that she was Mr. Curley’s unencumbered, conflict-free lawyer. The conflict now plainly apparent left Mr. Curley with no counsel during the grand jury proceeding in violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4549(c)(1).

If I were there, I would have come to the conclusion she represented Mr. Curley.

unless you are a lawyer, it seems crystal clear doesnt it? reminds me of bill clinton. depends on what you mean by, (what was it?) "is".

 

[costalpilot]

imo baldwin is lying up to her teeth about the representation. i also believe she kept it as vague as she possibly could so that she would have some wiggle room if things turned bad, and now that they have she is using it.

how is this playing out legallY? sorry to be so uninformed, but is she in jeopardy or has the legal system just rubber stamped her explanation, which seems not at all to be true to a layman who is accustomed to normal language usuage and meaning.

 

[Reader]

Article about pictures but has info on Baldwin situation and AG's response:

Lawyers for Curley and Schultz wrote, in the document filed Tuesday in Dauphin County court, that state law requires the judge "to exclude the testimony of Ms. Baldwin in criminal proceedings against her former clients, Curley and Schultz. In the absence of a waiver by the client, an attorney is barred from testifying, in a criminal matter, regarding statements that the client made to the attorney in confidence."

In a prosecution filing last week, the attorney general's office said it was not aware of any conflict of interest on Baldwin's part and therefore had no reason to raise the issue before the judge who supervised the secret grand jury. Prosecutors argued that representing multiple clients does not necessarily mean a lawyer has a conflict of interest.

"Based on their interviews prior to testifying, it appeared that the defendants intended to cooperate in the investigation," prosecutors wrote on
Nov.14. "Such action would not conflict with the interests of the other witnesses represented by attorney Baldwin, who also were cooperating. That the defendants actually intended to mislead the grand jury and the commonwealth would not alter the fact that, at the time they were represented by attorney Baldwin, there was no conflict of interest."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/ar...dusky-victim-photos-4056123.php#ixzz2DjbFCx00

 

[Rlaub44]

Article about pictures but has info on Baldwin situation and AG's response:

"That the defendants actually intended to mislead the grand jury and the commonwealth would not alter the fact that, at the time they were represented by attorney Baldwin, there was no conflict of interest."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/ar...dusky-victim-photos-4056123.php#ixzz2DjbFCx00

Snipped, with respect.

So the prosecutors agree that Baldwin was representing the administrators. It sounds as if she is the only one who doesn't believe she was.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped, with respect.

So the prosecutors agree that Baldwin was representing the administrators. It sounds as if she is the only one who doesn't believe she was.

She may have representing them as employees of the University, as part of the University, but not individually. That is a distinction that has been made.