Opinion ID: 790545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Guardian Ad Litem's Testimony

Text: 11 Defendants argue that the district court erred in permitting Eva Cheney, the children's court-appointed guardian ad litem, to testify at the hearing on the motion for new trial. Defendants contend that attorney Cheney's testimony without a waiver by the children violated the attorney-client privilege because Cheney told them she was their lawyer and served as their lawyer during the trial. The district court overruled this objection on the ground that the Court's intention was to create a guardianship for purposes of the trial .... As far as the Court was concerned then and now, there was no attorney/client relationship established. Whether an attorney/client relationship existed is a finding of fact we review for clear error. See State v. Catch The Bear, 352 N.W.2d 640, 645-46 (S.D.1984). On this record, the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous. In addition, defendants fail to identify any testimony by Ms. Cheney that disclosed a confidential communication protected by the privilege. 12 Defendants further argue that Ms. Cheney's testimony violated 18 U.S.C. § 3509(h)(2), which provides in relevant part that [a] guardian ad litem shall not be compelled to testify in any court action or proceeding concerning any information or opinion received from the child in the course of serving as a guardian ad litem. This ground was not asserted in the district court, so our review is for plain error. See Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 877 (8th Cir.2004). The district court appointed Ms. Cheney guardian ad litem pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(h)(1), a statute that authorizes such an appointment to protect the best interests of the child. Though Cheney was subpoenaed to testify at the evidentiary hearing, defendants fail to identify any portion of her testimony that was compelled within the meaning of § 3509(h)(2), nor have they established that her testimony was against the best interests of the child[ren]. Thus, there was no plain error.