# Do prosecutors have to turn over all evidence, or just the evidence they use?



## ironpony (Oct 6, 2019)

For my story, if a prosecutor is giving the defense his evidence in a criminal case, does the prosecutor have to turn over all evidence?  There is a witness who have a statement, which could clear the defendant of wrongdoing.  The witness could be lying though, but the prosecutor is not sure.  The prosecutor really wants to win this big case, and does not want to turn over the witness to the defense, thinking it's an unreliable witness anyway, who could be lying.  But is the prosecutor, by law, required to turn her over?  Or is he only legally obligated to turn over witnesses he intends to use, and thus since he is not using this one, there is no legal obligation for him to mention her at all?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 6, 2019)

THEY HAVE TO TURN OVER EVERYTHING.
To do otherwise would be considered prosecutiorial misconduct, and could end in disbarment.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 6, 2019)

Oh okay, at what point during the discovery process, do they have to turn over everything?  Like if they wanted to cut a deal with the defendant, do they have to turn over everything before making a deal, or if the deal is made early on, do they have to turn over everything beforehand still?


----------



## J.T. Chris (Oct 6, 2019)

Bare in mind that I have no legal training, but I would wager that they would have to disclose the information asap once they learn of it.

Google tells me the issue gets laid out in Brady v. Maryland. It'd be worth reading over.


----------



## Phil Istine (Oct 6, 2019)

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that if discarded "evidence" isn't declared, a serious breach of protocol has occurred.  There are very good reasons for this.  One slightly humorous example that springs to mind was regarding a person who was charged with possession of cocaine.  One of the pieces of evidence was that one of his banknotes contained traces of cocaine, presumably because it was used to snort.  It transpired that there are a surprisingly high percentage of banknotes in circulation that contain traces of the drug.  At the trial they tested a few random banknotes and some contained traces - including one of the judge's notes.  To say that someone's banknote contained traces could make them technically guilty.  To withhold the information that quite a few banknotes contain traces would, if known, be poor process.  Withholding evidence that could point to someone's innocence or invalidate other evidence is plain wrong.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 6, 2019)

Oh okay thanks, I read it over .

Well in my story, the prosecutor thinks this witness was most likely pressured to lie in her statement, by the villains, in order to help get the defendant off.  But the prosecutor does not want to admit the statement, cause by doing that, he will just be confirming to the defendant that his pressuring of the witness has worked.  So he doesn't want to give the defendant that confirmation.  Is there a law that perhaps says that a prosecutor does not have to turn over the statement of a pressured witness, if the witness is most likely being pressured by the defendant, cause you don't want to give the defendant confirmation that their pressure has worked?

Another real life case is also the O.J. Simpson case.  I was researching it and found something similar.  A witness from the airport came to the police and said he saw OJ Simpson there, dispose of a bag in the garbage.  The police went to the prosecutors with this but the prosecutors chose to throw it out, thinking it was unreliable.  They didn't tell the defense though.  Weeks or months past, and the witness decided to go to the defense himself, and said that he told police, but they never did anything with his statements.

But the prosecutors were never disbarred or were thought of as committing misconduct by withholding the witness's statement from the defense though.  Was there anything different about that case scenario?


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 6, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> THEY HAVE TO TURN OVER EVERYTHING.
> To do otherwise would be considered prosecutiorial misconduct, and could end in disbarment.



This.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 6, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Is there a law that perhaps says that a prosecutor does not have to turn over the statement of a pressured witness, if the witness is most likely being pressured by the defendant, cause you don't want to give the defendant confirmation that their pressure has worked?



I don't know what you mean by this. Pressuring a witness...everybody does that to an extent. If you mean they threatened or otherwise coerced the witness through some unlawful means, that's witness intimidation and a crime in itself. If the prosecutor had evidence that the defendant and/or their counsel was somehow intimidating or otherwise tampering with a witness, they would absolutely want to sing that from the treetops - it's damning evidence against the defendant. What you're talking about doesn't make sense.



> Another real life case is also the O.J. Simpson case.  I was researching it and found something similar.  A witness from the airport came to the police and said he saw OJ Simpson there, dispose of a bag in the garbage.  The police went to the prosecutors with this but the prosecutors chose to throw it out, thinking it was unreliable.  They didn't tell the defense though.  Weeks or months past, and the witness decided to go to the defense himself, and said that he told police, but they never did anything with his statements.
> 
> But the prosecutors were never disbarred or were thought of as committing misconduct by withholding the witness's statement from the defense though.  Was there anything different about that case scenario?



It's not remotely the same. The prosecutor has discretion over how to argue the case. They don't have to use any evidence or witnesses, especially if they don't think they are reliable. Same for the defense. 

The important point is that both sides have equal access to all evidence. This is done through a process we call Discovery. It's a pre-trial phase in which both sides request and are bound to provide whatever evidence from the other they want - documents, etc. 

Are some lawyers less competent than others and does this affect the fairness of fighting a case? Yes. That's why good lawyers are expensive. But you are conflating this with some notion of corruption, of 'hiding' things. That doesn't (or shouldn't) happen.

I really urge you to do some proper research on the law. I don't think you quite understand how it works.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 6, 2019)

Oh okay, thanks, but what I don't understand is, why is it that the prosecution in the Simpson case, was not called out for misconduct, if they did not disclose the witness, and the defense had to find out about the witness, cause he chose to go to the defense himself, once turned down by the prosecution?


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 6, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, thanks, but what I don't understand is, why is it that the prosecution in the Simpson case, was not called out for misconduct, if they did not disclose the witness, and the defense had to find out about the witness, cause he chose to go to the defense himself, once turned down by the prosecution?



Dude, that isn't what happened. You actually already inadvertently answered this here:



ironpony said:


> A witness from the airport *came to the police* and said he saw OJ Simpson there, dispose of a bag in the garbage. The police went to the prosecutors with this but the prosecutors chose to throw it out, thinking it was unreliable. They didn't tell the defense though. Weeks or months past, and the witness decided to go to the defense himself, and said that he told police, but they never did anything with his statements.



Skip Junis went to the police, he did not go to the prosecution. The moment he went to the police his existence as a witness became a matter of record, available to both sides.

If he did go to the prosecution, avoiding the police entirely, and the prosecution then attempted to conceal that (not that they would have any real reason to do that with that particular witness, as far as I can see) then yes, that would be misconduct and probably a felony as already mentioned. But that is NOT what happened.

The job of the prosecution is to prosecute. They aren't working for the defense, in fact they're working actively against them. The prosecution can choose their own witnesses and their own selection of evidence to focus on. They aren't supposed to be impartial, unlike the police. The system relies on a competent, agile legal team on both sides to pore through all available evidence and cherry pick what they want to build their own opposing versions of the 'facts' in order to come to the most correct outcome in a case. Sometimes the correct outcome isn't what happens. In OJ's case, that seems obviously true now. But OJ wasn't acquitted because the prosecution was hiding evidence or witnesses. OJ was acquitted because the prosecution was incapable of building an effective case while OJ's defense team was successful in doing so.

In this case the prosecution decided not to use Junis' evidence to prosecute OJ, which was their prerogative. They didn't 'throw it out', they just excluded it from their case, for reasons still hotly debated. I'm not here to defend the prosecutors, it seems they were incredibly arrogant and fucked up the whole thing big time, but what they did regarding Junis, as far as we know, doesn't meet the standard of _misconduct_. I am unaware of any credible evidence that the prosecution attempted to hide Junis's account, or any account actually, from the Defense's team or that there was any corruption involved to sabotage the case in OJ's favor - are you aware of any credible evidence to the contrary? If not, you might want to be careful.

It's worth pointing out that plenty of witnesses and evidence never makes it in front of a jury for a variety of reasons, but as long as both sides have equal access on request to all the evidence and witnesses they want and are acting in accordance with the law, there's no issue of the kind you are fixating on here.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 7, 2019)

Oh yeah I know that OJ was not acquitted cause of witnesses being hidden, I just thought it was interesting when the witness said he had to go to the defense, which implies that the defense did not know about him perhaps.  I'll have to find the video again, but I remember one of the lawyers on OJs team got the call from Junis, and he worded it like he didn't know who Junis was until they called him, which implies that they were never informed by the police about him.

So you say it's the police's job to inform the defense of a witness statement and not the prosecutors, is that right?  When you say that a witnesses statement to the police becomes public record, where are these statements to the police kept, for the defense to watch out for?


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 7, 2019)

Phil Istine said:


> I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that if discarded "evidence" isn't declared, a serious breach of protocol has occurred.  There are very good reasons for this.  One slightly humorous example that springs to mind was regarding a person who was charged with possession of cocaine.  One of the pieces of evidence was that one of his banknotes contained traces of cocaine, presumably because it was used to snort.  It transpired that there are a surprisingly high percentage of banknotes in circulation that contain traces of the drug.  At the trial they tested a few random banknotes and some contained traces - including one of the judge's notes.  To say that someone's banknote contained traces could make them technically guilty.  To withhold the information that quite a few banknotes contain traces would, if known, be poor process.  Withholding evidence that could point to someone's innocence or invalidate other evidence is plain wrong.



I assume it's the same in the UK but certainly here in the US the code of professional ethics is taken extremely seriously. It's basically analogous to the Hippocratic oath for doctors. The ABA (American Bar Association) requires all lawyers to learn these. If anybody's interested (and the OP should definitely take a look) they are listed here. 

Specifically Rule 4.1 states: "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6." 

Third person, in the above, would be anybody who is not the client. 

Are there shady lawyers? Of course. There are shady doctors, too. But how often do you come across a doctor who is dishonest? It's rare, isn't it? The Hollywood cliche of a shady attorney who lies and manipulates and shreds documents left,right,and center to win a case is ill-founded and unfair. In the real world, this doesn't happen...very often. 

The main reason it doesn't happen is because the moment the Bar Association gets a whiff of an attorney who isn't upholding professional standards that individual's career is in serious jeopardy. Violating ethics is grounds for disbarment. Most lawyers are not going to do that, especially not for a bunch of lowlife clients they don't necessarily have a vested interest in taking that level of risk to help. Most lawyers would rather lose (or, more likely, remove themselves from) a case before putting themselves in a position where they would be breaking any of those ethical guidelines, let alone breaking the actual law.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 7, 2019)

Oh okay.  It's just for my story I want the prosecutor to pressure the defendant into cutting a deal, and not have some witness who has an alibi for the defendant to stop him and have him drop the case.  He believes the alibi to be lie and wants to get the defendant to cut a deal anyway.  So I was wondering if there is any legal loophole in where he doesn't have to disclose the witness, and not have the defendant win essentially?

Like for example, you say witness statements made to the police are public record.  But how long before they become public record?  After a statement is given, can the prosecutor pressure the defendant to cutting a deal, before the witness statement gets to the defense?


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 7, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh yeah I know that OJ was not acquitted cause of witnesses being hidden, I just thought it was interesting when the witness said he had to go to the defense, which implies that the defense did not know about him perhaps.
> 
> So you say it's the police's job to inform the defense of a witness statement and not the prosecutors, is that right? When you say that a witnesses statement to the police becomes public record, where are these statements to the police kept, for the defense to watch out for?



I'm not aware that he 'had' to go to the defense. Where did you hear that? And no, it wouldn't imply the prosecution did anything unethical. That's an assumption and a deeply unfair one.

My only point is it's the defense (and prosecution's) job to properly research their side of the case and request the appropriate documents and witnesses to substantiate it, which the police and all other entities would always be obliged to make available. That's why trials usually take months to prepare for. I can all but guarantee Kardashian & company all knew about Skip Junis the moment he made his disclosure, that's why they charge a fortune per hour.



ironpony said:


> Oh okay. It's just for my story I want the prosecutor to go after this defendant and not have some witness who has an alibi for the defendant to stop him and have him drop the case. He believes the alibi to be lie and wants to prosecute anyway. So I was wondering if there is any legal loophole in where he doesn't have to disclose the witness, and not have the defense win essentially.



The loophole would be a crooked prosecutor or an incompetent defense attorney or both. There's no other way for a witness to remain secret just because the prosecution finds them inconvenient. If the prosecutor believes the testimony to be a lie, the witness not credible, the correct recourse is to cross-examine them. Read the ABA guidelines I posted, it's all in there.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 7, 2019)

Oh okay thanks.  I saw it in a documentary on the Simpson case.  It was either Vincent Bugliosi vs. OJ Simpson, or OJ: Made in America.  One of those two.  

Well when say they knew the minute Skip Junis gave his statement, how are they made aware of this exactly?  If a witness goes to make a statement to the police, do the police immediately call the defense and tell them to get down there, to see the statement, right away?  Or do they fax it over right away to the defense attorneys?  What is the exact procedure?


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 7, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay thanks.  Well when say they knew the minute Skip Junis gave his statement, how are they made aware of this exactly?  If a witness goes to make a statement to the police, do the police immediately call the defense and tell them to get down there, to see the statement, right away?  Or do they fax it over right away to the defense attorneys?  What is the exact procedure?



What do you mean how are they made aware of it? It forms part of the case file which the legal team is able to review when they need to. It's really not all that complicated.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 7, 2019)

Well you said the defense would have known about Junis's statement to the police the moment he made it.  So how would the defense find out?  I am actually writing the scene in my story, where the witness makes a statement to the police, so if the defense is to be informed right away, then I should write that into the scene.  But how do the police inform the defense then, if it's true, that the defense would know the moment the witness discloses things?

How much time would it take for the defense to find out from when the statement is made exactly?  You say the moment it is given, but how long is that exactly?


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 7, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Well you said the defense would have known about Junis's statement to the police the moment he made it.  So how would the defense find out?  I am actually writing the scene in my story, where the witness makes a statement to the police, so if the defense is to be informed right away, then I should write that into the scene.  But how do the police inform the defense then, if it's true, that the defense would know the moment the witness discloses things?
> 
> How much time would it take for the defense to find out from when the statement is made exactly?  You say the moment it is given, but how long is that exactly?



This is why you need to do some actual research. I'm not willing to continue to spoon-feed it, not least because I only practiced for a short few years and therefore don't know *everything*, so consider this a loose schematic of how a criminal case typically works. You need to research the stages:

1. Suspect (SUS) is arrested. SUS receives defense counsel (DC) either their own or court-appointed at a hearing in which bond is posted if applicable.
2. Prosecution (PRO) is appointed the case, assesses possible charges based on existing evidence
3. SUS formally charged with a crime - 'indicted - by PRO -following pre-indictment hearing at which they do not have counsel present, questioned by PRO. SUS may not even be told they are a SUS during this phase. Meanwhile, the DC will usually start to work with the PRO to assess how to avoid charges being pressed. If PRO decides at that point to proceed with charge SUS is indicted. 
4. If/when PRO decides to indict, SUS will return to court for an arraignment. At this point SUS can plead guilty/not guilty. If not, guilty, this goes to a full trial.
5. At this phase, usually weeks or months after the arrest, the case enters DISCOVERY. 
6. During DISCOVERY the PRO is obliged to share all evidence obtained with the DC. The DC's job is to demand it through various legal mechanisms and it has to be provided during a set number of days, usually a couple of weeks. Any competent DC will know the PRO's entire basic case, the evidence and witnesses they are using, at this point.
7. Following this, assuming the original plea stands the case is ready for trial. Juries are selected.

Point 6 is where you are confused because at this point ALL evidence is, or should be, made available to BOTH sides. Evidence cannot then be spontaneously introduced to a trial following conclusion of discovery. It's not like either side can just stumble across a new witness and use their testimony immediately. Worth saying that, given the typical timelines between arrest and discovery, usually the vast majority of evidence is already collected at that point, so the question of new, substantial evidence is reasonably rare in routine criminal cases.

However, if new evidence _does_ pop-up during the course of the trial or at any stage after Discovery, it CANNOT be used by either counsel without special permission from a judge. If the evidence in question would made a material difference to the trial - say if a murder weapon previously lost was suddenly discovered or a new witness came forward - then the judge has the means to make a call on what to do. Sometimes they'll allow it, sometimes they won't - they won't if they will consider it unfairly prejudicial to one side. Sometimes if the new evidence opens a completely new avenue for the case, a motion for a new trial would begin, they would effectively start everything including the discovery phase over from scratch, but either way the main point is that fresh evidence would never be introduced to the jury by one side without both sides having access to it unless the judge approves. You can't just come into the courtroom, as a prosecutor, waving a bloody knife that somebody mailed you and say "LOOK FOUND IT! THE KNIFE!", in other words. If the judge makes an error in allowing evidence that ultimately appeared to deny the right to a fair trial, something that led to a case being decided without reasonable examination by the DC, that could certainly be grounds for the case being overturned on appeal. But it's the judge's call as to what gets presented to the jury on the day.

_How_ it is shared depends on the kind of evidence it is - if it's a gun, the physical gun could be made available to the DC if they wanted it, say to have it analyzed by an independent analyst. If it's a phone call, it'll be a recording. If it's emails, it would probably be printouts or whatever. I'm not sure why you're concerned about that.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 7, 2019)

Oh okay, thanks, well the way I wrote it so far is that this witness statement is introduced to the defense at the grand jury hearing, when the grand jury goes over all the evidence, to see if there is enough to proceed to trial.

Would this be wrong, and the defense would already have this evidence of a newer witness statement, before the grand jury hearing?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 7, 2019)

Pony: Just watch My Cousin Vinny.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 7, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, thanks, well the way I wrote it so far is that this witness statement is introduced to the defense at the grand jury hearing, when the grand jury goes over all the evidence, to see if there is enough to proceed to trial.
> 
> Would this be wrong, and the defense would already have this evidence of a newer witness statement, before the grand jury hearing?




Grand Juries don't really go over ALL the evidence. They're jurors, sitting in the jury box, listening to the prosecutor lay out the evidence most likely to get them a True Bill finding. Typically the defense is not present at a Grand Jury hearing...it's not a trial. You just have the DA's office laying out what they have so far, and proving that they have grounds to proceed with a [very expensive] trial. 

Discovery phase is where the DA [or county prosecutor] would hand over all evidence. It is also the point where the judge decides what to actually allow into the trial.

Always remember that *in a real courtroom, there are no surprises.* It's not like on TV where they call surprise witnesses, or pull an evidence bag outta their briefcase. EVERYTHING has been declared long before the jury sees it. Even witnesses have to be approved in advance.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 7, 2019)

Think of a Grand Jury as being like the pilot for a TV show.
If the pilot bombs, then they don't make the show.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 7, 2019)

Oh ok sonif the grand jury doesn't go ovee all the evidence then, then the prosecution can still withhold that piece of evidence until discovery then?


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 7, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh ok sonif the grand jury doesn't go over all the evidence then, then the prosecution can still withhold that piece of evidence until discovery then?



They can, but if it’s super important I don’t know why they wouldn’t show it. 

Ralph is correct that a grand jury hearing is really just an overview of the prosecutors case so far - the basis on which to decide. You could think of it a bit like a movie trailer or playable demo or something. The strongest, most damning evidence would undoubtedly be shown and questioned on, but it isn’t a trial. The reason it exists is to avoid gumming up the system by having frivolous trials.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 8, 2019)

Oh well in my story the prosecutor wants to pressure the defendant into making a deal.  But if the defendant knows about this witness statement, that would be in his favor more so, he will not go for the deal.  So the prosecutor will want to pressure him into making a deal at the preliminary hearing, after the defendant is told he is going to trial, but... before the prosecutor has to hand over the statement, which would be after the hearing I'm guessing.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 8, 2019)

Oh,there's plenty of time to pressure the defendant into a plea.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 8, 2019)

Oh well i thought they have a better chance of pressure before they are required to turn over any evidence that could be exculpatory.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 8, 2019)

Nothing says they can't try.
Once you have been mirandized, if you choose to do something stupid without running it by your lawyer, it's not their fault.

Hell, Cops are even allowed to lie to the defendant during interrogations. Getting a plea is a lot like selling vacuum cleaners.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 8, 2019)

Oh  ok so a deal cannot legally be reneged, if all the evidence was not presented to the defenfant before the deal?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 9, 2019)

A plea deal is not done until the judge says it is done.
Until then they simply have a non-binding agreement.
Either side can pull out.
In fact, the judge does not have to honor a plea deal, and they will tell the defendant so before making their decision. They say something like "Do you, Mister X agree to this plea agreement, and understand that I am under no obligation to abide by the elements of this deal?"

I once saw a judge take the guilty plea, but reject parts of a plea deal because he thought it too soft.
He also chastised the prosecutor for making the deal.
The judge can throw out elements of a plea deal, or the entire deal.



And a plea deal can be offered before all evidence is turned over to the defense. A smart lawyer would not take it, but a dumb client might.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 9, 2019)

Oh ok, why would a denfendant agree to a plea deal, if it could not be finalized though, rather than waiting to see all the evidence that will come out later?


----------



## Trollheart (Oct 9, 2019)

I'd imagine one motivator would be fear. If the cops say "You're going to go away for twenty years UNLESS..." they'll be more likely to jump at, or at least consider the deal without going into all its ramifications. Also, clients/accused aren't lawyers, so there may be details about the deal which they won't or can't understand, or even think about. The main thing is, you want to do as little time as possible, or get off with the lightest punishment, so you're likely to think about taking any deal. Also consider the accused may be in a state of high agitation, and with no lawyer there to advise them.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 9, 2019)

But i meant if the lawyer was there. 
 Before the the defendant could make a deal, wouldn't his lawyer jump in and say no deal till we see all the evidence though?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 10, 2019)

Like I said; A smart lawyer wouldn't fall for it. But a dumb client may. Also, an over worked public defender may take a bad deal simply to get the case off their desk. The latter is especially possible if the defendant failed to tell their lawyer EVERYTHING. If the defense is unaware of the full scenario, they may opt to accept a plea because they think the case is a slam dunk.

That's why you're supposed to tell your lawyer everything...so they know the full scope of the case and can anticipate what is to come. Leave your counsel in the dark, and you get shitty representation.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 10, 2019)

Oh okay.  Well i want the prosecutor to think he has a chance at a plea dispite having an exculpatory witness, who he hasn't introduced yet cause this is just a grand jury hearing.  Is there any way legal wise, that he thinks he can still have a chance at a plea?

He can even offer immunity, to rat out the others, but would he think the defendant and his attorney will go for it as oppose to waiting till after the grand jury hearing, for more evidence to come in?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 11, 2019)

Just how exculpatory is this evidence?
If a prosecutor has evidence the guy is innocent, and they pursue a case, while keeping the man in custody, they can be in some serious trouble, possibly even disbarred.

It's one thing to get the guy to talk voluntarily and BS him into spilling his guts on his friends, but once you have restricted their freedom, it becomes habeus corpus.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 12, 2019)

Well basically it's just one witness, who the prosecutor has suspicions about or doesn't think is reliable, so he feels that the guy is still guilty.  The witness is the victim in the kidnapping, but she is saying that no kidnapping happened, and is denying it.  So the prosecutor feels that she is too scared to testify as a witness, and wants to keep the victim out of it as a witness, and just threaten the defendant with the reliable police witnesses, in order to cop a plea.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 13, 2019)

So if this witness is considered a confidential witness (they are protecting her identity) then at some point in the discovery process the defense may be given the information about the witness.
At minimum, they would be given the witness statement, though possibly redacted.
Here is more on confidential witnesses:
https://www.sidley.com/-/media/file...ing-discovery-of-a-confidential-witness__.pdf


----------



## ironpony (Oct 15, 2019)

Oh okay so if the prosecutor can pressure the witness into cutting a deal before the discovery phase then, then that will work for my story, it seems, if that's correct.  Thanks for all the info!

I have another criminal law question if that's okay.  I was watching the movie The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946), and in that movie, a criminal confesses his crime to his lawyer so the lawyer can give him a better defense knowing all the details.  Later on, another person steals the confession from the lawyer's files, and blackmails the main character with it, threatening to give it to the prosecutor unless he is paid off.   But I thought that a conversation with your lawyer was privileged, and taking it out of the lawyer's files and giving it to the prosecutor would not do any good, cause it's privileged.  Is there a crack in the system there somewhere, where if the conversation is stolen from the file, than it becomes unprivileged, legally?


----------

