Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
14. Is the attorney's testimony admissible?
During the defendant's trial, the prosecutor called the codefendant's attorney and asked him to relate the information that the codefendant had revealed to the attorney.
At the start of the trial of a defendant and a codefendant for robbery, the codefendant and her attorney offered to give the prosecutor information about facts that would strengthen the prosecutor's case against the defendant in exchange for leniency toward the codefendant. The prosecutor refused the offer. Shortly thereafter, the codefendant committed suicide.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The prosecutor is asking for confidential communications between the codefendant and her attorney, which is privileged information, and it makes no difference who initiated the plea discussion. The question is whether the codefendant waived the privilege by offering information to the prosecutor, which she did not. Because the codefendant did not actually disclose any confidential communications to the prosecutor, there was no waiver.
C is incorrect. The prosecutor is asking for confidential communications between the codefendant and her attorney, which is privileged information. If the codefendant had actually provided information to the prosecutor, the privilege would have been waived as to any communications previously made to her attorney. However, the codefendant did not disclose any confidential communications, and whether she intended to disclose the information is irrelevant.
D is incorrect. A declaration against interest is one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability. Any statement to the attorney could not have subjected the codefendant to a risk of criminal liability, because the statement was privileged.