Opinion ID: 2508099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Testimony of Defendant's Former Attorney

Text: Deputy Public Defender John Sullivan represented defendant in the 1990 check forgery case. Over defendant's objection, the trial court permitted Sullivan to testify for the prosecution. Defendant claims that Sullivan's testimony violated his attorney-client privilege. He is wrong. During the guilt phase of trial, the prosecutor informed the court that he wished to call Sullivan to testify that on October 23, 1990  the day before Janine's murder  he requested a two-week continuance in the check forgery case because defendant had retained a private attorney. The prosecutor theorized that defendant asked for the continuance, having already planned to rob and kill Janine and then leave town. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the attorney-client privilege protected communications between defendant and Sullivan and that other witnesses, such as the clerk or court reporter, could certify the transcript as a public record. When the court asked if defendant's main objection was based on the attorney-client privilege, defense counsel replied, The privilege other than what is on the record. Counsel further asserted that the transcript, if properly authenticated, is indeed the best evidence here. When questioned by the trial court, Sullivan asserted that he would testify only about what he had said in court. He stated that, anything other than what I said in court I would assert the privilege to the court. In other words, if further inquiry as to what information that I had received, I would have to assert the privilege as confidential communication. When asked if defendant still objected, defense counsel stated, Yes. I believe the proper foundation of witnesses is the court reporter. The trial court overruled defendant's objection, finding that the proferred evidence can be proved several ways. It further ruled that Sullivan could only testify about what happened in open court on October 23, 1990, that's contained in Exhibit 7 [transcript of proceedings]. Sullivan authenticated the hearing transcript and testified only as to matters within it. He stated that he appeared on October 23, 1990, as defendant's attorney in a check forgery case to set the date for the preliminary hearing, that he requested a two-week continuance for a new lawyer to take over the case, and that defendant himself told the judge that he had hired another attorney. As is evident from the above proceedings, Sullivan did not testify about any confidential communications between him and defendant. (See Evid.Code, §§ 952, 954 [attorney-client privilege pertains to a confidential communication between client and lawyer].) Because this information was of public record no confidential information was elicited by the prosecution which violated the attorney-client privilege. ( People v. Gillard (1997) 57 Cal. App.4th 136, 162, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 790.) Accordingly, we reject defendant's claim that his attorney-client privilege was violated.