|
The more I thought about what we discussed, the more I realized that Jones'
ruling in the previous case was insane. OF COURSE the recording is
privileged. And here's a case that confirms that:
United States v. Spector, 793 F.2d 932 (8th Cir. 1986)
During the course of Adams' cross-examination, it
was revealed that Adams had made some tapes at the direction of his attorney to
assist the latter in his representation of Adams as a potential defendant.
Government counsel did not know the contents of those tapes, had never had them
in their possession, and strongly deny they ever knew such tapes existed prior
to the cross-examination of Adams. The tapes were sealed at the office of Adams'
attorney. There is no indication of an intention that these tapes be disclosed
to a third party. As was recognized in United States v. (Under Seal), 748 F.2d 871 (4th
Cir.1984), the attorney-client privilege protects âcommunications not
intended to be disclosed to third persons other than in the course of rendering
legal service to the client.â Id. at 874. The court relied on Supreme Court Standard
503(a)(4), which states in pertinent part: âA communication is âconfidentialâ if
not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom
disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to
the client.â Although Congress did not adopt this rule, courts have relied upon
it as an accurate definition of the federal common law of attorney-client
privilege, as this court specifically noted in Citibank, N.A. v. Andros, 666 F.2d 1192, 1193 n. 6 (8th
Cir.1981). âConsequently, despite the failure of Congress to enact a
detailed article on privileges, Standard 503 should be referred to by the
Courts.â 2 J. Weinstein, Evidence  503[02] at 503-17 (1975). The trial
court did not err in quashing the subpoena for the sealed tapes in the
possession of Adams' attorney. Id. at 938. |