Redbanksdog
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,100
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 1283
I Root For: Memphis
Location: |
RE: Nathan Wade, Fani's squeeze, testifies he had multiple meetings with WH counsel
(10-23-2024 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (10-23-2024 12:34 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote: (10-23-2024 12:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (10-23-2024 12:17 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote: (10-23-2024 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Special prosecutor for Fulton County. And yes, he has a client, as does a DA, as does any prosecutor.
Here is the problem, he's a prosecutor not a defense attorney. Here are some of you quotes on this subject matter.
Post # 42 "Finally, the cardinal rule for a lawyer is a duty of confidentiality for a lawyer"
Post # 65 All your doing here is moving the goal post from the subject matter.
Post # 81 "Knock yourself out defeating privilege there, keemo sabe" Here you are moving the goal post again. He's a prosecutor not a defense attorney.
Post #93 "Finally, the committee shouldnt ask him specifics of conversations he has. You know, the 'privilege thingy"
A prosecutor does not have attorney-client privilege because they do not have an individual client. A prosecutor's role is to serve the public, not a particular individual. In fact, the interests of the defendant are paramount during a criminal prosecution, which requires a freer exchange of information between the defendant and the prosecutor.
"The interests of the defendant are paramount during a criminal prosecution, which requires a freer exchange of information between the defendant and the prosecutor"
And another thing Wade knew what he was going up there for. It sure as hell wasn't going up there to talk about the weather. He lied his ass off up there and he does not have any privilege.
They actually do have a client. The county, and perhaps the State they are in.
And they have attorney client confidentiality. And they also have the privilege with respect to attorney work product.
Yes, the privilege attaches to DAs. They cannot be forced to divulge issues, except when a judge rules in that manner.
And yes, all of his work product, and contents of the work product -- are absolutely privileged.
The only thing that is different, is that a prosecutor has an obligation to disclose exculpatory information they have to the defense. Not freely hand everything over.
Your bolded is just dead ass incorrect.
"Your bolded is just dead ass incorrect."
BS 
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Title 1, Chapt 2, Art 2.01 -- Each district attorney shall represent the State in all criminal cases.
Wash, rinse, repeat 49 more times.
Actually 99 times, AGs fall into the issue.
Actually 100 times -- US Attorneys and DOJ prosecutors.
Even more so for work product privilege.
The *only* exception to the work product rule for prosecutors is that demanded by Brady v. Maryland (US Sup. Ct. 1963) which holds that a "prosecution that withholds evidence on demand of an accused which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bears heavily on the defendant” is not covered by the work product privilege.
Followed and cited in numerous Circuits -- as in a prosecutor’s opinions and mental impressions are discoverable under Brady and not protected work product should it contain “underlying exculpatory facts.” (Morris v. Ylst (9th Cir. 2006) 447 F.3d 735, 742.)
The work product privilege only exists in the event there is a client-attorney relationship.
Sorry, Nathan Wade's work product is pretty much covered by the privilege. Subject only to Brady evidence that must be turned over, or such opinions regarding that Brady evidence. And only to a defendant.
Since Congress isnt a defendant -- oopsie. Privilege exists.
Your AI generated blurb is simply wrong.
You could have put all of it in.
Brady v. Maryland and exculpatory evidence – Work product does not block the duty to provide evidence relevant to guilt
As stated earlier, attorney work product is grounded in the concept of attorney-client privilege. However, unlike a private civil attorney, a prosecutor has no individual client and instead serves the interests of the public they represent. Further, the interests of a defendant are paramount when facing a criminal prosecution and, therefore, a freer exchange of facts and information between the prosecutor and criminal defendant is required. As stated in the opinion written by Justice Brennan in the seminal case, Brady v. Maryland, a “prosecution that withholds evidence on demand of an accused which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bears heavily on the defendant.” (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87.) Should a prosecutor withhold the evidence identified in Brady v. Maryland, even inadvertently, the prosecutor becomes cast “in the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport with standards of justice, even though, as in the present case, his action is not ‘the result of guile.’” (Ibid.)
Therefore, unlike a private attorney, prosecutors must make available to criminal defendants much more evidence and information leading up to criminal trial. Should district attorney investigations result in the discovery of exculpatory evidence relevant to the defendant, such evidence weighing on guilt must be disclosed to the defense. (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87; Youngblood v. West Virginia (2006) 547 U.S. 867, 869-70; Tennison v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2008) 570 F.3d 1078, 1087.) Further, a prosecutor’s opinions and mental impressions are discoverable under Brady and not protected work product should it contain “underlying exculpatory facts.” (Morris v. Ylst (9th Cir. 2006) 447 F.3d 735, 742.)
|
|
/
Nathan Wade, Fani's squeeze, testifies he had multiple meetings with WH counsel
