Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 449

524US2

Unit: $U92

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

404

SWIDLER & BERLIN v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

and the Court of Appeals below have held the privilege may
be subject to posthumous exceptions in certain circum-
stances.
In Cohen, a civil case, the court recognized that
the privilege generally survives death, but concluded that it
could make an exception where the interest of justice was
compelling and the interest of the client in preserving the
conﬁdence was insigniﬁcant.
Id., at 462–464, 357 A. 2d, at
692–693.

But other than these two decisions, cases addressing the
existence of the privilege after death—most involving the
testamentary exception—uniformly presume the privilege
survives, even if they do not so hold. See, e. g., Mayberry
v. Indiana, 670 N. E. 2d 1262 (Ind. 1996); Morris v. Cain, 39
La. Ann. 712, 1 So. 797 (1887); People v. Modzelewski, 611
N. Y. S. 2d 22, 203 A. 2d 594 (App. Div. 1994). Several State
Supreme Court decisions expressly hold that the attorney-
client privilege extends beyond the death of the client, even
in the criminal context. See In re John Doe Grand Jury
Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 481–483, 562 N. E. 2d 69, 70
(1990); State v. Doster, 276 S. C. 647, 650–651, 284 S. E. 2d
218, 219 (1981); State v. Macumber, 112 Ariz. 569, 571, 544
P. 2d 1084, 1086 (1976).
In John Doe Grand Jury Investi-
gation, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court concluded that survival of the privilege was “the clear
implication” of its early pronouncements that communica-
tions subject to the privilege could not be disclosed at any
time.
408 Mass., at 483, 562 N. E. 2d, at 70. The court fur-
ther noted that survival of the privilege was “necessarily
implied” by cases allowing waiver of the privilege in testa-
mentary disputes.

Ibid.

Such testamentary exception cases consistently presume
the privilege survives. See, e. g., United States v. Osborn,
561 F. 2d 1334, 1340 (CA9 1977); DeLoach v. Myers, 215 Ga.
255, 259–260, 109 S. E. 2d 777, 780–781 (1959); Doyle v.
Reeves, 112 Conn. 521, 152 A. 882 (1931); Russell v. Jackson,
9 Hare 387, 68 Eng. Rep. 558 (V. C. 1851). They view testa-