In the USCJS, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege.

I will now rebut Pro's case, and defend my own. Thanks, again, to Pro!PRO's CASEOVERVIEW: Prioritizing Truth-Seeking will not increase the amount of new evidence available“In Fisher v. United States, the [Supreme] Court remarked that the attorney-client privilege is intended to ‘protect only those disclosures...which might not have been made absent the privilege.’ In the 1996 Jaffee opinion, Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, elaborated: The likely evidentiary benefit that would result from the denial of the privilege is modest…Without a privilege, much of the desirable evidence…is unlikely to come into being. This unspoken ‘evidence’ will therefore serve no greater truth-seeking function than if it had been spoken and privileged.” [1]The Harvard Law review adds, “to the extent that the privilege induces a client to reveal information to his attorney, it keeps from the court only sources of information that would not exist without the privilege. As the Supreme Court has recognized: ‘Application of the attorney-client privilege…puts the adversary in no worse position than if the communications had never taken place.’” [2]VALUE: According to Pro's definition, Justice is about fairly punishing criminals. However, this is a very narrow facet of Justice. Rather, Justice is about the fair application of laws in society, according to Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition), a much more reliable source than dictionary.com. I will show how I link to this value throughout this debate. I will also attempt to show how Pro fails to link. Moreover, I would argue that Gov. Legitimacy and Justice are closely linked, in that without justice a government cannot be legitimate, and that without good government, justice is soon lost. Achieving one achieves the other.Consider that fairness implies fairness for all. It is inherently unfair to make a system that gives the guilty no chance at a fair trial, which is the unfortunate side-effect of affirming this topic. “Full and frank communication is necessary for the provision of effective legal representation…attorneys otherwise would be deprived of information necessary for the preparation and anticipation of claims and defenses, which would harm both the client's interests and the adversarial process. The vindication of rights in, and overall efficacy of, our justice system often depends on sound and adequate legal advice and assistance.” [3] A lack of ACP hinders a person's ability to engage in full and frank communication because the client will always fear that their own attorney might turn them in if they say too much.CRITERION: Firstly, This criterion inherently contradicts with Pro's value of Justice. For example, Person X has information on Person Y. The police arrest Person X--a pedophile--and, in exchange for his information, release him back into society. Person Y, a worse criminal, may now be behind bars, but not only is Person X still a menace to society, but he has escaped punishment. This is not a fair application of the law, and is thus unjust. Utility, by being a numbers game, inherently overlooks concerns of fairness when fairness is a hindrance to getting the best results.Secondly, ACP links to utility, in that its benefits outweigh its harms. “The purpose behind the privilege is to promote full and open communication between the attorney and client. As a result of this communication, an attorney will be better able to represent his client in a competent manner. The attorney-client privilege also promotes ‘broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice’ by providing the attorney and client with a confidential forum in which to communicate and resolve the client's problem. While the privilege may suppress important evidence, it has been determined that the need to allow the attorney to provide sound legal advice generally outweighs any disadvantage of withholding evidence in a particular case.” [4]Thirdly, ACP links to utility in that it cuts down on misconduct. "“By encouraging clients to communicate information they would otherwise withhold from their lawyers, confidentiality enhances the quality of legal representation and thus helps produce accurate legal verdicts…It can foster aspects of lawyer and client ‘dignity’…confidentiality helps lawyers discover improprieties that the client plans, advise against them, and ultimately stop the misconduct.” [5]C1: Goals1: Let's just cross-apply my overview here. If no new information will be obtained by truth-seeking, then what is the point? Pro has no offense here, then, because she cannot claim that she will promote more accurate verdicts, solve more cases, or help the innocent.2: Consider that ACP is part of a broader understanding of privacy, and that by undermining ACP, one enables an invasion of individuals privacy. Consider that people are also less likely to seek legal advice if they believe their communications may not be kept confidential. In this way, undermining or abrogating ACP would be a harm to people, even innocent people.C2: Who is harmed?See the above. Additionally, let's consider the following: Person A has been accused of murder. Person A admits to their attorney that they cheated on their wife (which is not a crime), and that their wife threatened to divorce them. The prosecutor subpoenas the defense attorney of Person A, and compels them to take the stand under the truth-seeking doctrine or to otherwise disclose this conversation. The prosecutor's logic is that the motive for the murder was the threat of divorce, and so that information is probative and worth disclosing. Even if Person A is innocent, he will forever be known as an adulterer. That is a clear harm to an innocent person, and so Pro's logic here just doesn't hold up.C3: ExceptionsI will address this under my case, definitions.CON's CASEDEFINITIONS: Pro attempts to argue that these exception flow Pro. However, they are intrinsic to the definition of ACP. ACP is defined as "the client's right, within the boundaries of existing law and jurisprudence, to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney." These exceptions are considered by the courts to define what ACP is, and what it is not, and therefore, Pro must show that additional exceptions (other than those in the status quo) are warranted in order to show that truth-seeking should take precedence over ACP.OBSERVATION: Conceded.VALUE: This may be a debate regarding the USCJS, but it is taking place in the United States. we can look just as much to what the government ought to be doing (Gov Legit) as to justice.CRITERION: Unfortunately, because rights exist and are formed outside of the USCJS, we cannot look solely to the goals of the USCJS to determine what is a strong or weak right. instead, our focus must be directed to the Constitution, because it describes those rights that the government has the most difficulty overcoming. Those are our "strong rights."C1: Constitutional RightsNotice here that Pro NEVER REBUTS that Constitutional rights are strong rights. This point is DROPPED. Therefore, if I can prove that ACP is a Constitutional right, I have shown it to be a strong right.Moreover, ACP does not need to be mentioned verbatim in the Constitution, because the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as requiring ACP. One example of this case law is Upjohn vs. U.S. [6]C2: ACP as a Constitutional rightCon makes similar errors in both sub-points.At the point where privilege can be denied when "finding the truth" makes the right worthless. Prof. Minh A. Luong observes: “Thus, if rights are to have a meaning, they must serve as a trump when they conflict with other social goods, like the protection of the national interest. This view of rights is upheld in other areas--just societies allow for freedom of speech, even if it might offend some people in the community." If I have a right to X, but that right can be infringed when it becomes inconvenient, then, functionally, I have no right to X. My opponent has also misunderstood my argument here. When I said, "the only way the client could prevent self-incrimination...would be for him to limit his communications with his attorney," this was because if ACP does not exist, then clients will not be full and frank. It has nothing to do with the exceptions, because even under those, I could admit to my attorney, "I killed someone," and that information would still be confidential. But, essentially, none of Pro's attacks actually have anything to do with the crux of this point, i.e. that the 5th amendment guarantees ACP. Not once does she deny this point. It is DROPPED. In fact, she seems to agree that the amendment guarantees it by saying she would not get rid of ACP altogether. Constitutionally, ACP trumps truth-seeking. “The state's interest in truth-seeking cannot support the restriction of constitutional rights found in Meredith. The Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination is necessary to protect individual liberty from government abuse even though this necessarily restricts the state in its truth-seeking." [7]SOURCES1 - Imwinkelried, Edward J., Law Professor, U. Cal Davis, 2002, "The Historical Cycle," 55 Ark. L. Rev. 241, p. 254-62 - Harvard Law Review, 1985, "Privileged Communication: III. Attorney Client Privilege" 98 Harv. L. Rev. 1450, p. 1507-83 - Glynn, Thomas P., Law Professor, Seton Hall, 2002, "Federalizing Privilege", 52 Am. U.L. Rev. 59, p. 69-70 4 - Northwestern University Law Review, 1992, "Attorney-Client Privilege and Procedural Safeguards" 86 Nw. U. L. Rev 368, p. 383-45 - Zacharias, Fred C., Law Professor, Cornell Law School, 1989 "Rethinking Confidentiality," 74 Iowa L. Rev. 351, p. 358-96 - http://www.ask.com...8 - Cal Law Rev (previously cited)