MO: Recording def’s conversation with attorney in police station interview room violated 6A and privilege; mandamus granted against unsealing

Defendant’s attorney met him at the police station to confer, and they put them in an interview room which recorded their meeting. The trial court appointed a special master to review it. The recording violated defendant’s attorney-client privilege and right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and the trial court’s unsealing the master’s report also did. The report is to remain under seal. Defendant’s search claim for his blood can’t be raised in this mandamus proceeding because he has a right to appeal that. State ex rel. Healea v. Tucker, 2018 Mo. LEXIS 153 (May 2, 2018).

Defendant’s appeal is essentially a challenge to the district court’s findings of credibility of the witnesses. The record supports the findings of consent. United States v. Thurman, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 11397 (7th Cir. May 2, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.