As it turns out, the Colorado Gunman sent a package said to detail his plans to a professor at the University of Colorado where he was a student.
When the police tried to seize the package, it was discovered that the professor it was addressed to happens to be the Gunman's psychiatrist.
The defense is claiming that because it was information sent to his doctor, the police cannot have access to the package for their investigation.
What do you all think? I personally don't know if I would consider it privileged or not. All I know is that I would like to see what was in the package.
Of course the defense is doing their job trying to protect their client, and the police are doing their job at trying to collect evidence. That's what they get paid to do. I was just wondering peoples' opinions.
People here seem to like to debate. Maybe I was wrong on that. I'm sorry for trying to start a conversation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing to apologize for.
Who needs to say "constructive things"? Not me!
|
Absolutely nothing wrong with your question or with asking it in the OTD forum.
Based on the idea itself and ignoring the fact that I obviously don't know the particulars in this case, I'd initially argue that the information is no longer privileged since it directly pertains to the murders.
If I write my doctor a note saying I plan to commit a crime and I then commit that crime, I would argue I give up the confidential nature of the note through my public activation of the note's contents.
Good point, thejeff. I have always heard (from my own therapists) that if you tell them about a crime you plan on committing, then the therapist is obligated to tel the authorities.
As far as I know, the only "after the fact" confession that is protected is a priest's confessional. I may be wrong on that one though, cause I've only seen it as an issue on L&O/NCIS/CSI.
Okay, apparently I was wrong on that. Thanks for the correction.
Are "before the fact" confessions to a priest protected? I was under the impression that anything you say to a priest (at least while in the confessional) is protected.
Totally slipped my mind on confessions to a lawyer. However, any good lawyer in my book wants justice rather than for simply his client to win. Most defense lawyers are painted as "win no matter what" though.
This may (or may not) answer some questions.
Totally disagree about what comprises a "good" lawyer, though.
Unless you're talking about alignment...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may (or may not) answer some questions.
Totally disagree about what comprises a "good" lawyer, though.
Unless you're talking about alignment...
Alignment-wise, there are no Good lawyers.
I disagree, although I have known some rat bastards.
(Ex-college roommate, I'm looking at you!)
Yeah, sorry.
It would have (maybe) been funnier if you'd heard me say it instead of reading it.
Back to the topic at hand. This particular package was mailed before the event took place. It did not arrive at its destination until after the event happened. At first, it was reported that the package was sent to one of the gunman's professors. Later, that report changed to his psychiatrist, who is also a professor at the University of Colorado.
Another question, if you were her, in her position as this person's doctor, release the package to the police/prosecution?
Totally slipped my mind on confessions to a lawyer. However, any good lawyer in my book wants justice rather than for simply his client to win. Most defense lawyers are painted as "win no matter what" though.So a "good" lawyer should throw the case if he thinks his client is wrong?
Not "throw" the case, but try to come up with a way to not have to lie in court. Yes, he did it, but he's not guilty because of *insert reason here*.
That's the key, all lawyers should hold to that utmost ideal that one should not lie in court.
When they become a member of the Bar, attorneys swear an oath, something along the lines of...
"You solemnly swear that you will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that if you know of an intention to commit any, you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court or some of them that it may be prevented; you will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same; that you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct yourself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of your knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity, as well as to the courts, as to your clients. So help you God."
The conflict between doing "no falsehood" as well as upholding their clients' interests is what gives ulcers to ethical attorneys. Even the most selective attorney's clients won't always be utterly pure and upright, so they may find themselves in awkward positions. I once knew a woman, a defense attorney's investigator, who quit her job when she discovered that the witness information she had uncovered had enabled a client (a member of the New Mexican Mafia prison gang) to orchestrate the murder of the witnesses against him.
|
Summary of the rules and approaches lawyers take with guilty clients:
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf
And a speech by Edward Greenspan, Canada's best known lawyer on "how can you defend those people?": (scroll down a bit)
http://speeches.empireclub.org/60446/data?n=5
The most important, the most frequent question I am asked, the question that comes up at my cocktail parties, is: How do we represent a guilty man? There is a simple, quick and complete answer. Our whole system of criminal justice is built on the basic premise that every man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. His guilt must be shown by evidence produced by a prosecutor in a courtroom-not in a newspaper or broadcast.
"Guilty" in this frame of reference is not a moral term. It is a legal term. No one is legally guilty until a judgment of guilt has been made by the court. The lawyer is neither expected nor qualified to make a moral judgment on the person seeking his help. Moral guilt or innocence is no more within the province of the lawyer than within the jurisdiction of the court. The accused is entitled to have a trial and to have his legal guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence tested in the crucible of cross-examination. He is not entitled to produce perjured evidence in court or to testify falsely. But he is entitled to sit silent and force the proof of guilt. Moral judgments by the lawyer are frequently wrong and he learns not to make them. No lawyer can assume the character of a judge.
My (extremely) amateur opinion: mail should have the same expectation as phone messages and other private communications. You can't exactly have a wire tap on someone's mail, but I imagine there's some sort of warrant that allows the police to examine someone's mail. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to open all the mail a suspect has sent on the off chance that it holds evidence.
Would I release the package to the prosecution? I really can't say without knowing what it contains. I will say that given we're sure that Holmes (said his name) did commit the crime, I have a hard time imagining something that I'd want kept out of the legal case. I guess I'm saying that if didn't give it to the prosecution, I'd probably hand it to the defense.
Okay, apparently I was wrong on that. Thanks for the correction.
Are "before the fact" confessions to a priest protected? I was under the impression that anything you say to a priest (at least while in the confessional) is protected.Totally slipped my mind on confessions to a lawyer. However, any good lawyer in my book wants justice rather than for simply his client to win. Most defense lawyers are painted as "win no matter what" though.
I'm pretty sure that if you tell your doctor that you are going to commit a crime, they cannot tell. The only exception is if you make a specific threat against someone, the doctor can tell the person that you have threatened.
Doctors and Lawyers face penalties if they violate confidentiality rules as is appropriate.
I still find it kind of ridiculous that priests get legal confidentiality, under cannon law they can only reveal information about serious violations of church law, not actual crimes. I'm not sure that there are consistent actual laws about this.
It's a Hail Mary defense choice. Per Wikipedia:
In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor-patient privilege.
At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction.
It's a Hail Mary defense choice. Per Wikipedia:
In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor-patient privilege.
At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction.
This isn't a Federal case though, it's a state/local system that is going to try this. It might turn out that he committed some sort of federal crime, but they'd have to get the state to turn over jurisdiction on the murders, which probably won't happen.
I'm completely an amateur, but I doubt it will go federal, unless there is some sort of appeals process that goes past the Colorado supreme court, or a state law is used that is in conflict with federal law or the constitution.
Even in a case like the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh was tried in a federal court. Terry Nichols was tried in federal court for killing 8 federal agents, but the state of Oklahoma tried him for the other 161 people.
I would think that, given what happened to the guys apartment, the police have good reason to have someone in a bomb suit open the box.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I am not a lawyer, but:
At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction.
This isn't a Federal case though, .... but they'd have to get the state to turn over jurisdiction on the murders, which probably won't happen.
The feds have independent sovereignty and may prosecute even if the state does. Double jeopardy doesn't apply under dual sovereignty.
A quick look at the Colorado cases and statute makes it appear that the CO statute is broad and, absent waiver, is enforced.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1377927.html
|
|
Hmm also if his psychiatrist had this information before the attack, is he now guilty of a crime?
Dunno. Criminal negligence maybe? There might be a breach of professional standards that could result in decertification or fines. I'm sure someone will try to sue him, people are already trying to sue the movie theatre.
What purpose would there be in charging the shrink?
Hmmm.
Under Colorado law, mental health professionals cannot be held liable in civil suits for failing to predict a patient’s violent behavior unless it involves a “serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons.” When such a threat is made, the mental health professional is required to take action, which may include notifying those targeted or a law enforcement agency.
She didn't have the package beforehand. It was in the mail when the massacre happened. She received it the following Monday.
I am not a lawyer, but:
At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction.
This isn't a Federal case though, .... but they'd have to get the state to turn over jurisdiction on the murders, which probably won't happen.
The feds have independent sovereignty and may prosecute even if the state does. Double jeopardy doesn't apply under dual sovereignty.
A quick look at the Colorado cases and statute makes it appear that the CO statute is broad and, absent waiver, is enforced.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1377927.html
This is true, but the federal law still won't be applied to the Colorado courts.
Crimes can be tried twice under dual sovereignty, but that isn't applied terribly often. Usually in particularly egregious cases or ones where there are strong public political pressure to try the case again (the Rodney King beatings for instance). I'm not seeing much for case law with spree killings, particularly since a lot of those incidents end with the perpetrators killed or committing suicide. Even such high profile cases like Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson haven't been tried in federal court, even though they could be.
Looking a little more, I did find a case. Michael Vick made a plea agreement with the Federal government, only to be indicted by the state of Virginia right after. It can be used, but it isn't used often.
|
|
Hmm also if his psychiatrist had this information before the attack, is he now guilty of a crime?Dunno. Criminal negligence maybe? There might be a breach of professional standards that could result in decertification or fines. I'm sure someone will try to sue him, people are already trying to sue the movie theatre.
What purpose would there be in charging the shrink?
Hmmm.
** spoiler omitted **
.
Yes, it is privileged information.
Just because the one party is a psychotic killer doesn't mean both parties,
the sender and receiver, do not have rights.
I know you don't like this. Either do I. So, pass an amendment to change it.
.
You don't need an amendment to change it. Case law probably, but not an amendment. The constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, I don't think its THAT unreasonable, given the evidence against this guy, to issue a warrant and search his stuff. Case law granting shrink- patient privilege probably disagrees, and i doubt anyone will get it.
At the very least, i think it needs to be opened carefully by someone used to explosives: I don't think he's going to loose confidentiality by someone reading the cover. Then someone not connected to the prosecution should go through it.
I don't think i trust the university here. he was supposedly withdrawing from the program at the same time he seemed to be getting a lot of funding. Were they using this guy as a guinea-pig in some psyche department experiment or is my tinfoil hat on too tight?