Zimmerman v. The Superior Court Of San Diego County

220 Cal.App.4th 389 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Goodwin is charged with first-degree murder with a special circumstance that she committed the murder for financial gain. P is a deputy public defender. P was assigned to represent Goodwin from September 2011 through the end of April 2012. On April 16, 2012, P lodged with the superior court a large manila envelope containing (1) a zippered leather portfolio holding various documents, including a will and trust-related documents and other papers purporting to belong to the victim (Gerald Rabourn), and (2) another envelope containing eight items of unopened mail addressed to Rabourn. P was subsequently transferred by her office and a new deputy public defender was assigned to represent Goodwin. The prosecution filed a motion to compel production of evidence and P's testimony about the documents. Goodwin's counsel opposed the motion, arguing that (1) P provided ineffective assistance of counsel because she accepted the documents and turned them over to the court; (2) the documents should be excluded under Evidence Code section 352; and (3) the information the prosecution sought was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The court set an Evidence Code section 405 hearing to address the issue. The court reminded the parties that the party claiming the attorney-client privilege had the burden to show the privilege applied. P testified but refused to answer certain questions. P invoked the attorney-client privilege in response to the following questions: 1. When did the portfolio first come into your possession? 2. When did the mail first come into your possession? 3. Did you take possession of the portfolio and the mail at the same time? 4. Where were you when you first took possession of the portfolio? 5. Where were you when you first took possession of the mail? 6. From whom did you receive the portfolio? 7. From whom did you receive the mail? 8. Did you take possession of the items during a confidential communication with Goodwin? 9. Who, other than yourself, handled any of the mail items? 10. Did you direct a third party to go to a location to retrieve the portfolio? 11. Do you know the location of the portfolio before it came into your possession? 12. How long did the portfolio and its contents remain in your possession? The court found that the attorney-client privilege did not apply and ordered P to answer the questions. P refused and the court cited her for contempt. After conducting further proceedings in camera, the court's ruling remained unchanged. The court sentenced P to custody until she testified or the proceedings were concluded. P appealed.