Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 458.0

524US2

Unit: $U92

[09-15-00 14:34:37] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 399 (1998)

413

O(cid:146)Connor, J., dissenting

“loss of crucial
information” will often result, see 24 C.
Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5498,
p. 484 (1986).

As the Court of Appeals observed, the costs of recognizing
an absolute posthumous privilege can be inordinately high.
See In re Sealed Case, 124 F. 3d 230, 233–234 (CADC 1997).
Extreme injustice may occur, for example, where a criminal
defendant seeks disclosure of a deceased client’s confession
to the offense. See State v. Macumber, 112 Ariz. 569, 571,
544 P. 2d 1084, 1086 (1976); cf. In the Matter of a John Doe
Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 486, 562 N. E. 2d
69, 72 (1990) (Nolan, J., dissenting).
In my view, the para-
mount value that our criminal justice system places on pro-
tecting an innocent defendant should outweigh a deceased
client’s interest in preserving conﬁdences. See, e. g., Schlup
v. Delo, 513 U. S. 298, 324–325 (1995); In re Winship, 397
Indeed, even
U. S. 358, 371 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).
petitioners acknowledge that an exception may be appro-
priate where the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant
are at stake. An exception may likewise be warranted in
the face of a compelling law enforcement need for the infor-
mation.
“[O]ur historic commitment to the rule of law . . .
is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that
the twofold aim of criminal justice is that guilt shall not es-
cape or innocence suffer.” Nixon, supra, at 709 (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Herrera v. Collins, 506
U. S. 390, 398 (1993). Given that the complete exclusion of
relevant evidence from a criminal trial or investigation may
distort the record, mislead the factﬁnder, and undermine the
central truth-seeking function of the courts, I do not believe
that the attorney-client privilege should act as an absolute
bar to the disclosure of a deceased client’s communications.
When the privilege is asserted in the criminal context, and
a showing is made that the communications at issue contain
necessary factual information not otherwise available, courts