Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL 58 N.Y.2d 368, 448 N.E.2d 121 (1983) Case Brief.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Richard A. ALCORN and Steven Feola Supreme Court of Arizona, 202 Ariz. 62, 41 P.3d 600.
Advertisements

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Richard A. ALCORN and Steven Feola Supreme Court of Arizona, 202 Ariz. 62, 41 P.3d 600.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against SCHAFER Supreme Court of Washington, 149 Wash.2d 148,
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In the Matter of Stanley R. JUHNKE Kansas Supreme Court, 273 Kan. 162, 41 P.3d 855 (2002)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. Willard JOHNSON U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 327 F.3d 554 (2003) Case Brief.
4 th November 2013 EFFECTIVE PROSECUTIONS. Interviews and PACE – Code E Code E 4.5 CAUTION THE SUSPECT REMIND THEM OF THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO [FREE] LEGAL.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. COURCHESNE Supreme Court of Connecticut, 262 Conn. 537, 816 A.2d 562 (2003) Case.
September 26, 2007 Court Organization and Trial Court Reform Judicial Administration in Canada.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER 19 Ohio St.2d 55, 249 N.E.2d 818 (1969) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. TWEEDY, Supreme Court of Oklahoma 2000.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. DECK v. MISSOURI 125 S.Ct (2005) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. POHLE v. CHEATHAM Court of Appeals of Indiana, 724 N.E.2d 655 (2000) Case Brief.
Chapter 5 – Criminal Procedure. The Role of the Police The process by which suspected criminals are identified, arrested, accused and tried in court is.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. DLUGASH 41 N.Y.2d 725, 363 N.E.2d 1155 (N.Y. 1977) Case Brief.
Vivek Barbhaiya and John Coriasco
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. COHEN v. BAYSIDE S&L 62 Misc.2d 738, 309 N.Y.S.2d 980 (1970) Case Brief.
Privilege, Privacy, and Waiver. Privilege Attorney/Client In the law of evidence, a client's privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. LUCY v. ZEHMER 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954) Case Brief.
SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT BY ABNORMALITY OF MIND & PROVOCATION Claus & Stephanie.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BLANTON v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 489 U.S. 538 (1989) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. COLBY v. CARNEY HOSPITAL 356 Mass. 527, 254 N.E.2d 407 (1969) Case Brief.
From the Courtroom to the Classroom: Learning About Law © 2003 Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. GRIFFIN v. CALIFORNIA 380 U.S. 609 (1965) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BROWN v. SOUTHLAND 620 F.Supp (E.D.Mo. 1985) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MOSELEY v. ZIEG 180 Neb. 810; 146 N.W.2d 72 (1966) Case Brief.
State Court System By: Ashanti, Glenn, Timmy, Julie.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. TRONCALLI v. JONES 237 Ga.App. 10, 514 S.E.2d 478 (1999) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER 488 U.S. 9 (1988) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. GOGGIN v. NEW STATE BALLROOM 355 Mass. 718, 247 N.E.2d 350 (1969) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. Pamela L. PETERS Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 263 Wis.2d 475, 665 N.W.2d 171 (2003)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MASSACHUSETTS v. SHEPPARD 468 U.S. 981 (1984) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE Supreme Court of Georgia, 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000) Case Brief.
Material Covered in Assignment 4-1: The Attorney-Client Privilege A. Rationale for the Attorney-Client Privilege (p. 318) B. Criteria for Attorney-Client.
Criminal Procedure Chapter 6. Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning Objectives Define arrest, and explain the authority of a firefighter to make an.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL 538 U.S. 408 (2003) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. LYNCH v. LYNCH 164 Ariz. 127 (1990) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. LOWE v. QUINN 27 N.Y.2d 397, 267 N.E.2d (N.Y. 1971) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. LEBOVITZ 401 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2005) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. WYMAN v. NEWHOUSE 93 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD 223 Kan. 62, 573 P.2d 970 (Kan. 1977) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. GUFFEY 262 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.Ct.App. 1953) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697 (2d Cir. 1976) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. GRAY Juvenile Court of Ohio, Cuyahoga County. 145 N.E.2d 162 (1957) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE v. LEE 353 N.W.2d 213 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. NEWMAN v. SUMMY CO. 133 F.2d 465 (2d Cir. 1943) Case Brief.
Constitutional Criminal Procedure
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE 894 So.2d 88 (Fla. 2004) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. WILLIAMS Supreme Court of Iowa 695 N.W.2d 23 (2005) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. ISHMAEL v. MILLINGTON 241 Cal.App.2d 520, 50 Cal.Rptr.592 (1966) Case Brief.
Pre-trial Process Court Systems and Practices. Entry into the Court System A person enters the court system when they are arrested – An arrest occurs.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Case Brief.
Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Juvenile Law By Toni Marsh, Esq.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH 149 Or.App. 171, 942 P.2d 793 (1997) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. FINE v. DELALANDE, INC. 545 F.Supp. 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. GRAND FORKS HERALD 688 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2004) Case Brief.
SALTZMAN v. AHERN 306 So.2d 537 (Fla.App. 1975)
Unit 4 Word power.
STATE v. WINDER 348 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1973)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
MARTIN v. MARCIANO 871 A.2d 911 (R.I. 2005)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ 172 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1948)
Chapter 6 Issue Identification
BROWN v. BROWN 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. DCA 1974)
STATE v. KINGMAN 463 P.2d 638 (Wash. 1970)
Copyright 2006 Thomson Delmar Learning.
ARENA LAND & INV. CO., INC. v. PETTY 69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995)
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER 53 Ill.App.2d 299, 202 N.E.2d 841 (1964)
The Canadian Legal System
Chapter 4 Case Law and Case Briefing
Presentation transcript:

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL 58 N.Y.2d 368, 448 N.E.2d 121 (1983) Case Brief

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL PURPOSE: Confidentiality does not extend to third parties in the law office during disclosures.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL CAUSE OF ACTION: Murder (appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree). The cause of action is not indicated in the excerpt found in the text.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL FACTS: Mitchell was under indictment for the stabbing death of his girlfriend and went out one night for a “last fling,” picked up a girl in a bar and took her to a hotel room, ultimately stabbing her to death (or so the jury concluded). When he woke up to find the girl dead, he went to his attorney’s office in an agitated state and rambled on about his previous night to two legal secretaries in the reception area. (continued)

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL FACTS (continued): Neither were employees of Lapine, his attorney, whose secretary then arrived and he made further disclosures to her in the presence of the other secretaries. Attorney Lapine then arrived and following their private discussion, Lapine called the police, who went to the hotel room and found the body.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL ISSUE: Whether statements made to unknown women in the common reception area of law offices are protected by lawyer/client privilege.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL HOLDING: No. Not privileged.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL REASONING: Mitchell’s statements were not made to an employee of his attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Lapine’s secretary was the last woman in the office to hear defendant’s inculpatory statements and even if statements made to her at the time could have been privileged, the privilege was lost because of the prior publication to nonemployees and the utterance of the statements to Pope-Johnson in front of the nonemployees.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL AFTERTHOUGHT: Although the court did not reach the question as to whether Lapine was retained in the matter, this might be an interesting question to discuss in class.

Feedback: Privacy Policy Feedback
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
About project: SlidePlayer Terms of Service

© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc. All rights reserved.