Attorney-client Privilege?

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by "J_R", Sep 15, 2003.

  1. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    I just read an article (see below) about an attorney who is being ordered to give up privileged client information. With Patsy's recurrence of ovarian cancer, I am curious if her attorney will be able to maintain attorney-client privilege if something should happen to Patsy and the new investigative team finds the evidence leads them right back to the Ramsey camp. Then too, what happens to attorney-client privilege under Wood since he represents both John and Patsy?


    <u>Attorney Given Two Weeks to Tell Judge What Client Knew About Arsenic Death</u>

    An attorney has two weeks to turn over what his client told him about the poisoning death of a Raleigh AIDS researcher.

    Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens says he wants Richard Gammon's sealed testimony about comments Derril Willard made in the Eric Miller case by September 26th.

    Last month, the state Supreme Court upheld Stephens' order, although Gammon says providing the information would harm his attorney-client privilege with Willard. Stephens would read Gammon's affidavit and determine what could assist prosecutors trying to solve Miller's homicide.
    ...snip

    Willard killed himself after police began investigating Miller's death in December 2000.
    ...snip

    http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/091103_APlocal_arsenicpoisoning.html
     
  2. South

    South Member

    I doubt very seriously the R's have come clean with their lawyers. I would guess they have never told the truth about the case to anyone, least of all the people they have hired to defend them. People tell their stories in ways to best reflect on them. The truth rarely enters into the picture.
     
  3. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    A dead person has no rights

    What attorney-client privilege exists between an attorney and a dead client? The guy killed himself. He cannot be harmed by breaching attorney/client privilege. I agree with this decision.

    I also agree with South. The Ramseys have not come clean to their attorneys.
     
  4. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    In Days Yon

    The attorney-client privilege has always been a sacrosanct bond between the parties to protect the rights of clients, even when those clients have confessed to crimes, or the attorney has had knowledge that a client was culpable. It always operated like a clergy-parishioner relationship. That privilege always extended beyond the grave, not for the sake of the client, but in compliance with ethics rules for attorneys.

    However, in a very recent American Bar Association decision, that privilege can now be pierced, and an attorney is no longer bound by it, in cases where the attorney has knowledge of crimes by corporate clients. The decision still gives attorneys freedom of choice in divulging such info and the decision was made for the protection of lawyers whose corporate clients, like Enron, would place their own counsel at risk in failing to disclose. I would imagine that we will ultimately see these kinds of law changes for accountants, stock brokers, medical and mental health professionals, etc.

    In the Ramsey case, any judge could order any attorney representing the Rs to give it up IF that judge had a reasonable suspicion the attorney possessed knowledge of crime(s).

    ABA Loosens Attorney-Client Secrecy Rules

    Reuters
    Monday, August 11, 2003; 10:27 PM

    By Gail Appleson, Law Correspondent

    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The American Bar Association on Monday narrowly passed a controversial proposal that will allow lawyers to pierce sacred attorney-client secrecy rules to help stop financial crimes.

    In a 218 to 201 vote, the ABA's policy-making body amended its ethics code to allow, but not require, lawyers to breach attorney-client privilege if they believe doing so would stop a client from committing a financial crime or fraud.

    Dennis Archer, the ABA's incoming president, urged passage of the amendment.

    "This is in the best interest of our profession. It is in the best interest of our country," said Archer, a former mayor of Detroit.

    Many lawyers objected to the change, fearing it would severely harm the time-honored duty of lawyers to keep a client's information secret. They also worry that the change could expose lawyers to liability lawsuits.

    Among them was president-elect Robert Gray of Richmond, Virginia, who will succeed Archer in August 2004.

    "This is not the proper time to bow to threats by those who seek to regulate us," Gray said. "This not a time to take a position that the core values of this profession are subject to compromise."

    The group is scheduled to vote on another controversial ethics amendment on Tuesday that applies to lawyers who represent corporate clients. The proposal clarifies "triggers" that would require lawyers to report a corporate officer's conduct to the company's upper management. It also addresses circumstances in which lawyers can reveal information to
    authorities about their corporate clients.

    Similar proposals have been defeated by the House of Delegates in previous years. However, Archer and many other lawyers feel the landscape has changed in the wake of high-profile scandals that have engulfed Enron and other companies.

    "The environment we are in is very sobering," said William Ide, a former ABA president from Atlanta. "As officers of the court it is our responsibility to take a hard look at the damages that have been done to people. We need to decide there is more lawyers can do."

    Indeed, the ABA's vote will be closely watched by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been charged by Congress with setting standards of professional conduct for in-house and outside attorneys who advise public companies.

    Some SEC rules for lawyers went into effect last week, and the agency could adopt more stringent requirements if it is dissatisfied with the ABA's actions.

    However, several lawyers spoke out against the proposal, including William Paul, a former ABA president from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who said the rule change undermines a system that has worked for some 200 years.

    "We need that rule to enable us to do our work," he said, adding that the amendment "asks us to barter away a piece of our professional soul to get some hope for public approval."

    Sharon Stern Gerstman of Buffalo, New York, said the recent corporate scandals were not caused by lawyers' inability to reveal confidences and there is "not one shred of evidence" that the rule change would have made a difference.

    Instead, she said the ABA is being pressured by "government agencies that want us to make their jobs of learning our clients' secrets easier for them."

    © 2003 Reuters
     
  5. Spade

    Spade Member

    Disagree

    I disagree that the Ramsey's haven't come clean with their attorneys. That might be the case with lw but I think Bynum, Morgan, Haddon, and Hoffstrom (yes that is the right name) all know the true story. Not only that, but I think they knew the true story BEFORE JonBenet's body was found by JR & FW.
     
  6. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    Ditto from me

    I agree with that, Spade. Just my opinion, of course.
     
  7. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    I pretty much agree with Spade's assessment though I am not as certain about the "before," part of your statement Spade. IMH&CPO Wood has at least made an educated guess even if he hasn't been told specifically what the Ramseys know.
     
  8. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Spade,

    what's this BEFORE thing? How could the attys know the truth before the body was found? What are you implying? Comeon give.
     
  9. Spade

    Spade Member

    Door #3

    The hypothesis that Ramsey attorneys and the Boulder DA's office had contact early in the day of December 26, 1996 is known in LE circles as "Door #3". IMO the truth of this tragedy lies behind "Door #3".

    The most compelling fact supporting this theory is that FW received a phone call from Mike Bynum during the afternoon of 12/26/96 asking FW to come to Bynum's office at 5PM. Upon his arrival, FW was told by Bynum to: "Stay out of this!" The Ramseys have hired Haddon,etal............(This is in ST's book and has been verified personally)

    Now work through this timeline in your heads: FW and John found the body at about 1:15PM. 3 3/4 hours later Haddon, Morgan and Foreman are on board and have Ellis Armisted's snoops on the street. IMO impossible to accomplish in that period of time, EVEN IF JR dumped JBR's body at 1:16 and called Bynum the next minute. JR has to talk to Bynum with detail, Bynum has to eliminate the 300+ lawyers in his own firm, Bynum calls Morgan with enough detail for Morgan to call Haddon and Foreman and the 3 of them reach consensus and call bynum back and tell him they will take the Ramsey's as clients and how MUCH$$$ it is going to cost and Bynum has to call back JR and say we have Haddon,etal on board for $$$ and is that OK? and THEN he can call FW..summon him to his office and tell him to stay out of it. ALL IN 3 3/4 HOURS THE DAY AFTER XMAS? BS
     
  10. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    WHOA...Knock me off my chair.

    The Ramsey spin started before the 911 call?

    Makes sense.

    Remember in Thomas' book he acted surprised when Fleet White told him the day and time he was contacted by John's attorney? In fact I think Thomas even thought White was mistaken but he wasn't.

    Good God what happened that night?

    How does one go about proving that Hadden was called?

    I don't even know where to start here.

    Tricia
     
  11. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    I think what FW was being warned away from was certain lawyers' sneaky way of digging up dirt on anyone who goes up against them, and letting the witness know they have the dirt long before they take the stand. I'm sure Bynum knew that any good-intentioned person who got involved would ultimately get smeared.

    I recall early on Peter Boyles swearing up and down that it was a fact that Ramsey called Bynum before he called the police. Kinda makes you wonder...
     
  12. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Whoa!

    Now hold on, Spade. While I would love to believe this, and have always suspected the Rs called at least one lawyer early on, let's hash this through a little more.

    What if JR called Bynum at home right AFTER the 911 call? French showed up 3 minutes after the call according to BPD records. That would make it about 6 am or so. If JR had waited until then, that would give JR the time to place a call to Haddon et al upon Bynum's referral and be waiting for a call back from Haddon during the morning hours. Sometime between 10 and noon, JR disappeared, remember? THEN the body was found at 1-ish and FW was summoned to Bynum's office at 5 to be told to butt out.

    So IF JR placed the Bynum call that early, and considering the gravity of the situation and Bynum's close relationship with the Rs, it's feasible that all this attorney stuff could transpire within the course of, say 12 hours.

    But why would Bynum et al consider it SO important to call FW right in just to tell him to buzz off? What did they fear from FW and not from other Ramsey friends to have called anyone else on the lawyer-rug?

    Oh, Tricia, if I remember correctly, BPD moved the court for a search warrant to get land line and cell phone records from, who else, Qwest, but it got hung up for weeks with the judge. By the time a warrant was issued, Qwest claimed all phone records were either lost or "dumped" from their computers. Yeah, right. Who do you think had the power and influence to pull that off?
     
  13. Mels

    Mels Member

    Geraldo became silent at the drop of a hat...or was it at the drop of a threat?

    This, I believe, is where some merit is attributed to the theory of there being several people involved in JBR's death.

    WAY too many people acting in unison...and quietly.
     
  14. Spade

    Spade Member

    DJ

    How would Bynum know that John needed a high-powered lawyer at 6AM when John's wife had just reported a kidnapping?
     
  15. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Simple, Spade

    Bynum IS a high-powered lawyer. He specializes in corporate law, not criminal. It is common knowledge in legal circles that when something attracting police attention happens in a family, that family will be the first under the umbrella of suspicion, especially if it's related to a child. Bynum is smart enough to have referred JR to the "BEST" criminal defense attorney in CO-Hal Haddon (Haddon and Bynum had at least a professional relationship, and I believe, shared real estate investments, and Boulder ain't that big).

    JR called his attorney and friend, Bynum, at some point and said, "Hey, JonBenet's been kidnapped!" Bynum went into action. It's very common for the wealthy to have corporate lawyers and for those corporate lawyers to make referrals to others outside their own specialties. Happens all the time.

    Not only would the time of that call be interesting, but the gist of that initial conversation too.
     
  16. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    Actually, I am curious what case players were not in bed together to be honest.

    Haddon and Bynum had a least a professional relationship and possible real estate investments.

    Kolby and Susan Stine appear to have a prior connection through The Family Learning Center, which tells us what the Ramseys had to gain by cultivating their friendship after the murder but one still has to wonder why the Stines stood by the Ramseys and even followed them to Atlanta.

    Perhaps Kolby and Stine's prior relationship is what kept Ms. Stine's hiney out of trouble when she was impersonating Beckner - who knows.


    Then we have Smitsit and the horse kisserer... Don't <b>even</b> want to go there. JMH&CPO.
     
  17. Spade

    Spade Member

    DejaNu

    If you believe the Ramsey's story then they had NO need for a lawyer at 6AM. Their daughter was kidnapped and their focus would have been to recover her not cover their own a**. The Ramsey's LIED from the getgo. Don't waste time trying to make their fabrications seem logical.

    Incidentally, Bynums law firm is the largest in Boulder and employs 300+ lawyers, many of whom do criminal defense work. In DOI John talks about being asked by Bynum if Bynum could handle finding legal representation for the R's. The way John tells it, this occured on the 27th. BS

    If you study how this case has been lawyered by both the prosecution and defense you will be well along the road of understanding what is really going on.
     
  18. Ayeka

    Ayeka Member

    Yep

    I believe that if those phone records had been released completely and entirely, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The land line comes up incomplete, the cell phone shows was zero activity recorded in December. (At least that is what I recall -- I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.) How likely / realistic does that seem that in the entire month of a major holiday that they would neither make nor receive calls on their cell phone? If nothing else, wouldn't Patsy be calling John to find out when he was bringing his a$$ home from the d@mned airport on Christmas day? ;)

    I've always thought it possible they made calls before calling 911, to lawyers included. With three minutes from the call to the first officer arriving, it sure would be a rushed conversation if they called lawyers after calling 911. And what about all the friends that were showing up?

    Spade, your posts are intriguing... :sleuth:

    Ayeka
     
  19. Spade

    Spade Member

    Phone records

    The Ramseys finally signed a release for the phone records in December 1998. They are sealed with the Grand jury testimony. However, that doesn't mean that they are unavailable to a persistent researcher. Not from the GJ records but from other sources available to LE.

    In Linda Arndt's deposition, she states that ALL of the non-LE outgoing calls from the Ramsey house after 6AM on 12/26/96 were made on John Ramsey or John Fernies cell phones. Yet, I have heard the same as you that phone company records for John's phone come up clean for the entire month of December 1996.
     
  20. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    The thought that just occurred to me while reading Ayeka's post is perhaps John was working the cell while Patsy was calling 911, which is why Patsy made the 911 call - something everyone including the BPD has questioned since John is the cool, calm, collected executive type and Patsy the hysterical, drama queen.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice