On NG last night they discussed the idea of whether or not LE would have to report if they heard KC tell JB where the body was. Apparently LE is allowed to listen in to make sure there is no talks of escape or anything. Also, they had a defense attorney on and he said if a client admits to killing someone, any privacy and attorney-client priviledge that exists whould be thrown out. Does anyone know if this is true?
Hmmm ... I think that I understand your question. If KC admitted to killing Caylee, Baez could still represent her but, as an officer of the court, he could not do or say anything to publicly assert her absolute innocence. As an officer of the court you cannot lie or knowingly mislead ... that is why most defense attorneys make the clear distinction to their clients between attorney and priest! In the situation, when a client admits their guilt, but wants to go forward with a "not guilty" plea ... because of the nuances of "not guilty" versus "innocent" an attorney can simply challenge the State to prove their case ... but they really couldn't put out an alternate theory that was in direct conflict to what he knew to be the truth, as told him by his client. (LPC Handbook on Criminal Litigation 2007-2008 p20)
As far as having to tell or a severing of confidentiality because of an admission of guilt ... or even an admission to having incriminating knowledge (such as, in this case ... if Casey told him where to find the body,) he would not automatically be relieved of his duty to maintain privilege ... unless doing so would keep her from committing a future crime and a few other instances …
This may help ... From the FL Bar.
RULE 4-1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
(a) Consent Required to Reveal Information. A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent.
(b) When Lawyer
Must Reveal Information. A lawyer shall reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) to prevent a client from committing a crime; or
(2) to prevent a death or substantial bodily harm to another.
(c) When Lawyer May Reveal Information. A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) to serve the client's interest unless it is information the client specifically requires not to be disclosed;
(2) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and client;
(3) to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved;
(4) to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; or
(5) to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(d) Exhaustion of Appellate Remedies. When required by a tribunal to reveal such information, a lawyer may first exhaust all appellate remedies.
(e) Limitation on Amount of Disclosure. When disclosure is mandated or permitted, the lawyer shall disclose no more information than is required to meet the requirements or accomplish the purposes of this rule
Furthermore
Disclosure adverse to client
The confidentiality rule is subject to limited exceptions. In becoming privy to information about a client, a lawyer may foresee that the client intends serious harm to another person. However, to the extent a lawyer is required or permitted to disclose a client's purposes, the client will be inhibited from revealing facts that would enable the lawyer to counsel against a wrongful course of action. While the public may be protected if full and open communication by the client is encouraged, several situations must be distinguished.
First, the lawyer may not counsel or assist a client in conduct that is criminal or fraudulent. See rule 4-1.2(d). Similarly, a lawyer has a duty under rule 4-3.3(a)(4) not to use false evidence. This duty is essentially a special instance of the duty prescribed in rule 4-1.2(d) to avoid assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct.
Second, the lawyer may have been innocently involved in past conduct by the client that was criminal or fraudulent. In such a situation the lawyer has not violated rule 4-1.2(d), because to "counsel or assist" criminal or fraudulent conduct requires knowing that the conduct is of that character.
Third, the lawyer may learn that a client intends prospective conduct that is criminal. As stated in subdivision (b)(1), the lawyer shall reveal information in order to prevent such consequences. It is admittedly difficult for a lawyer to "know" when the criminal intent will actually be carried out, for the client may have a change of mind.
Subdivision (b)(2) contemplates past acts on the part of a client that may result in present or future consequences that may be avoided by disclosure of otherwise confidential communications. Rule 4-1.6(b)(2) would now require the attorney to disclose information reasonably necessary to prevent the future death or substantial bodily harm to another, even though the act of the client has been completed.
The lawyer's exercise of discretion requires consideration of such factors as the nature of the lawyer's relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client, the lawyer's own involvement in the transaction, and factors that may extenuate the conduct in question. Where practical the lawyer should seek to persuade the client to take suitable action. In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client's interest should be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to the purpose.
Hope that helps!
crazy: Legal Eagles: You do realize that I have a huge bookmark folder devoted solely to links to your great answers, don't you? And I doubt that I am the only one. It's like a mini-law library. We sure do appreciate you.)
