Opinion ID: 1156962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contents of Western's report as work product.

Text: Rule 15.4(b) protects reports to the extent they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions ... of defense counsel or his legal or investigative staff. The court of appeals held the report here did not contain such protected material because it only described the chemical contaminants found in the soil and their concentrations and notes which chemicals were hazardous wastes.... It contains no theories, opinions or conclusions regarding how the results may effect [sic] the [defendants]. Corbin, 161 Ariz. at 187, 777 P.2d at 685. We disagree. Western created the protocol for the investigation report. The creation of the protocol  specifying the type of investigation, the type and location of samples, the method of taking the samples, and the method of their analysis  necessarily constitutes scientific or engineering theories and opinions. The interpretation of gas chromatography tests is more than a mere lay observation; it requires scientific training. The ability to make expert scientific observations necessarily requires professional judgment and, therefore, opinion and conclusion. Thus, the determination that certain compounds or chemicals exist in the soil samples is a conclusion. Additionally, the determination that certain material in the soil samples is a hazardous waste can be made only by applying the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, determining whether the substances in the soil samples were hazardous wastes requires the application of law to fact and is, in the truest sense, a conclusion. [3] Certainly, as the state argues, the report also contains mere factual observation. The problem, however, is that the state subpoenaed the report without notice to counsel or Excel. It thus obtained the entire report  not only factual observations, but also opinions, conclusions, and even Scott's personal notes of conversations with defense counsel. The grand jury saw or heard all of it. We note two other points in passing. First, the state argues that other criminal discovery rules require disclosure of the Western report. Rule 15.2(c)(2) requires that defense counsel provide the prosecution with certain information regarding experts whom he will call at trial, together with their written reports and statements. At this stage in the proceedings, however, the expert who prepared the Western report was a non-testifying expert used only for investigation and education of defense counsel. Therefore, Rule 15.2 would not require the disclosure of this report. The work product doctrine is not absolute. Like any qualified privilege, a defendant may waive all or part of the protection by electing to present the expert as a witness. Nobles, 422 U.S. at 239-40, 95 S.Ct. at 2170-71; Rule 15.4. If defendants elect to present Scott as a witness, the work product doctrine will no longer provide the protection existing at this time. Second, the comment to Rule 15.4 refers to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 2.6 (hereafter ABA Standards) to define its scope. Indeed, the court of appeals relied on this ABA standard, approved in 1970, in holding the report was not work product. We note, however, that the ABA Standards have evolved and that the 1980 standard is quite different from the 1970 version. The 1980 standard provides the following: This limitation [on discovery of work product], which does not appear in the comparable provision for defense discovery of prosecution reports, has been added to the standard in order to make sure that the defendant is not required to disclose information that would lighten the prosecutor's burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or that would undercut the presumption of the defendant's innocence. (Emphasis added.) This new definition would not compel defense counsel to disclose information that would lighten the prosecutor's burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With this new standard in mind, we fail to see why the defense should have the responsibility of helping to prepare the state's case.