Opinion ID: 1272414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: court's production order

Text: At a pretrial conference on March 12, 1984, the State moved pursuant to Rule 16(b), W.Va.R.Cr.P., to require the production of all papers upon which the defense psychologists had relied in their evaluations of the defendant. After a short discussion, the court denied the State's motion. However, to provide an opportunity for the State to conduct a comparable mental examination, the court further ruled that all such papers be made available directly to the State's psychologist. As authority for its ruling, the court cited two cases, State v. Jackson, ___ W.Va. ___, 298 S.E.2d 866 (1982), and State v. Simmons, ___ W.Va. ___, 309 S.E.2d 89 (1983), as well as W.Va.Code, 27-3-1. [4] An order dated March 20, 1984, outlined the proposed procedure for production of the defense documents. It consisted of three major steps. First, the papers were to be delivered to the State's psychologist in a sealed box. Second, the State's attorneys were not permitted to inspect the papers, and the psychologist was instructed not to refer to the contents of the papers in any report she might prepare for the State. Third, the box was to be resealed and returned to the defendant after the inspection was completed. The defendant objected to the order, but produced the papers as required. So far as the record reveals, the State faithfully complied with the procedure. The sealed papers were made available to the State's attorney for review only after the lead defense psychologist had testified on direct examination. He did not specifically refer to these materials in his testimony. One of the documents produced by the defendant was a 10-page autobiography, captioned My Life With Sherry, which had been prepared by the defendant at the request of counsel. Also produced were pages of a diary handwritten by the defendant's mother. After the papers had been reviewed by the State, two areas were developed in cross-examination of each of the defense psychologists. First, the autobiography referred to one or more episodes of mutual infidelity, or wife swapping, in which the defendant had participated. Second, a diary entry suggested the defendant knew of his wife's relationship with Mr. Dean months in advance of the shooting. The State vigorously cross-examined the psychologists as to whether they had considered the information contained in the papers in arriving at their opinions on the defendant's insanity. Each witness indicated that the information had not affected his opinion. The papers were not introduced by either party. The State in its closing argument used the wife swapping incidents to undermine the defendant's insanity claim. It pointed out that the claim was predicated on the destruction of the defendant's loving relationship with his wife, but questioned how this could be when he acknowledged the wife swapping incidents. Initially, we note that the court at the criminal trial was correct in holding that these documents could not be discovered under Rule 16(b), W.Va.R.Cr.P. The State's right to request discovery from the defendant is triggered only if the defendant initially seeks discovery, and is confined to the particular area in which the defendant has sought discovery. [5] Additionally, the State must have complied with the defendant's initial discovery request before it can request discovery. The defendant had not sought documents under Rule 16(a)(1)(C); therefore, the State could not obtain documents in the defendant's possession pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1)(A). See I F. Cleckley, Handbook on West Virginia Criminal Procedure 539-40 (1984). Although the court relied on State v. Jackson, supra , and State v. Simmons, supra , to support its ruling, as does the State in this habeas appeal, we do not believe these cases are helpful. Jackson dealt with Fifth Amendment safeguards surrounding the defendant's statements at a court-ordered mental examination. It cannot be read as authority for the right of the State to obtain an order to compel the disclosure of documents voluntarily provided by the defendant to his own psychologists. Nor does Simmons support the State's position. In Simmons we addressed the question of whether a State psychiatrist had violated the confidentiality provisions of W.Va.Code, 27-3-1, when he obtained the defendant's medical record through his association with the same clinic as the defendant's psychiatrist. We made this statement in Simmons, ___ W.Va. at ___, 309 S.E.2d at 97, which may have led the trial court to conclude that production was authorized: [A]ccess to records held by a third party can be obtained under W.Va.Code, 27-3-1(b)(3), which permits a court to order production of such material if it finds `that said information is sufficiently relevant to a proceeding before the court to outweigh the importance of maintaining the confidentiality established by this section.' In Simmons, there was no court order compelling disclosure of communications made by the defendant to his retained psychologist. Consequently, we had no occasion to consider the constitutional implications of W.Va.Code, 27-3-1(b)(3). [6] These constitutional issues are discussed in the following sections, where we conclude that the court's production order violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but not his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination nor his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The Fourth Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. U.S. Const. amend. IV. [7] It has been stated that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy[.] Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 304, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1648,18 L.Ed.2d 782, 790 (1967). We adopted this same position in Syllabus Point 7 of State v. Peacher, 167 W.Va. 540, 280 S.E.2d 559 (1981): The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article III, Section 6, of the West Virginia Constitution protect an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. At the threshold, then, one who asserts a Fourth Amendment violation must demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject of the seizure. That expectation is to be measured both subjectively and by an objective standard of reasonableness. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). See also, United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705,104 S.Ct. 3296, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1974); 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 2.1(c) (2d ed. 1987). We are satisfied upon our review of the record the defendant had a reasonable expectation that his papers would remain private. The defendant was asked by his counsel to prepare and deliver to defense-retained psychologists the autobiographical material which chronicled his relationship with his wife and disclosed the incidents of wife swapping. [8] Most courts consider conversation or material delivered by the defendant, at his attorney's direction, to a psychiatric expert retained by the attorney in preparation for a mental defense to be within the attorney-client privilege. [9] We concur in this position and find that it creates a reasonable expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes. Cf. DeMassa v. Nunez, 770 F.2d 1505 (9th Cir.1985) (attorney-client privilege confers expectation of privacy in confidential communications to attorney). We thus turn to the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim. In its earlier analysis of compulsory production issues, the United States Supreme Court utilized a self-incrimination approach under the Fourth Amendment much as under the Fifth Amendment. E.g., Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886). Boyd and its progeny has, however, been substantially modified by Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976), and Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976), in which the Court concluded that the Fifth Amendment was not implicated by seizure of business documents. In Andresen, the seized documents had been voluntarily prepared by an attorney and were introduced at trial by a handwriting expert who authenticated them. Andresen relied on language in Fisher which emphasized that the two Amendments protect distinct types of interests: the Fourth Amendment protects personal privacy, while the Fifth Amendment bars compelled self-incrimination. 425 U.S. at 400-01, 96 S.Ct. at 1576, 48 L.Ed.2d at 50. Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the fact that a document compelled to be produced may be self-incriminating is ordinarily of no consequence. [10] Both Fisher and Andresen, in rejecting any self-incrimination overlay in Fourth Amendment seizure cases, relied on Warden v. Hayden, supra . In Hayden, the Supreme Court reversed long-standing precedent which held seizures to be permissible under the Fourth Amendment only if they involved contraband, instrumentalities, and fruits of a crime. [11] The Hayden Court concluded that any relevant evidentiary material could be seized. However, it went on to state that there must be a link between the evidence to be seized and the criminal conduct investigated: There must, of course, be a nexus automatically provided in the case of fruits, instrumentalities, and contraband between the item to be seized and criminal behavior. Thus, in the case of `mere evidence' probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction. In so doing, consideration of police purposes will be required. 387 U.S. at 307, 18 L.Ed.2d at 792, 87 S.Ct. at 1650. [12] It appears that the precise question involved in this case has not been definitely resolved by the United States Supreme Court since Hayden: Whether and under what circumstances private papers, as distinguished from business records, can be compelled to be produced under the Fourth Amendment. [13] We need not attempt a definite answer, as the case may be resolved on less troublesome grounds. Despite the lack of any direct guidance, it cannot be doubted that the United States Supreme Court would assert Fourth Amendment protection simply because it has done so in cases involving less intrusive acts by those who, while acting in a governmental capacity, were not in the role of law enforcement. In O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed. 2d 714 (1987), Fourth Amendment protection was found to exist where government hospital security officers made a warrantless search of an employee's office desk and file cabinet. The Supreme Court in O'Connor placed considerable reliance on New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985), which had extended Fourth Amendment protection to the search of a student's purse in school. Admittedly, both O'Connor and T.L.O. extended diminished protection because probable cause was not required to execute the search and no warrant was necessitated. However, the Court's acknowledgment in O'Connor of the continued vitality of Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968), reinforces our conclusion that strong Fourth Amendment interests are involved in this case. In Mancusi, a union official was convicted in a state court of conspiracy, coercion, and extortion in reliance upon records seized from his office by law enforcement officers. After unsuccessful appeals, he sought and obtained habeas corpus relief on the basis of a claimed Fourth Amendment violation. The Supreme Court affirmed, and concluded that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the papers contained in his office even though it was shared with several other union officials. Of particular interest in Mancusi was that the inculpatory material had been seized under the purported authority of a subpoena duces tecum issued by the State's attorney. The Supreme Court concluded that the subpoena could not be equated with a warrant, which is issued by a neutral and detached magistrate upon a showing of probable cause. [14] It concluded that there was, in effect, a warrantless search which was unreasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. [15] In the present case, a related defect exists. There was an absence of any probable cause which would justify the issuance of the order. [16] We believe that as an absolute minimum, the Fourth Amendment demands that a criminal defendant's private papers, in which there has been found to exist a reasonable expectation of privacy, cannot be seized by law enforcement officials in the absence of a valid warrant issued upon probable cause. [17] As a consequence, we find the production order to be invalid. We do not believe the fact that the autobiography was not introduced into evidence would cure the Fourth Amendment violation. It is generally recognized that a witness's testimony which is obtained or substantially influenced by materials seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment may also be suppressed under United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S.Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978). It is true that Ceccolini did not espouse a per se exclusionary rule. However, it did recognize that where there is a direct connection between the illegally obtained evidence and the witness, then testimony by the witness is not admissible. [18] Following Ceccolini, courts have tended to stress that if the witness's testimony has been induced as a result of the illegal search, then it is inadmissible. E.g., United States v. Scios, 590 F.2d 956, 191 U.S. App.D.C. 254 (D.C.Cir.1978); United States v. Cruz, 581 F.2d 535 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Rubalcava-Montoya, 597 F.2d 140 (9th Cir.1978); People v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.3d 883, 185 Cal.Rptr. 113, 649 P.2d 696 (1982); see generally 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.4(i) (2d ed. 1987). Here the defense psychologists' testimony was induced through cross-examination by the prosecuting attorney who utilized the illegally obtained evidence in questioning them. In so doing, the facts surrounding the defendant's wife swapping were brought before the jury. As we have earlier indicated, this was done in order to undermine the defendant's insanity defense. It remains to inquire whether the error in this case was harmless. The rule of harmless constitutional error, as announced originally in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), was summarized in Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Boyd, 160 W.Va. 234, 233 S.E.2d 710 (1977): `Failure to observe a constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' Syllabus Point 5, State ex rel. Grob v. Blair, [158] W.Va. [647], 214 S.E.2d 330 (1975). Although the evidence against the defendant was quite substantial, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the State's use of the illegally seized evidence in its examination of witnesses and argument before the jury did not impact adversely upon the defendant's insanity defense. It is clear that, but for the improper production order, the information relied upon by the State's attorney would not have come into the State's hands. [19] One of the dominant themes developed by the State that the defendant had been involved in wife swappingtraced its origin directly to the papers. This theme was employed repeatedly to counter the claim that the defendant's sudden discovery of his wife's infidelity triggered his insanity. It formed an integral part of the State's closing argument and seriously undermined the defendant's sole theory of defense. Other jurisdictions have declined to hold evidentiary errors to be harmless where the potential impact upon an insanity defense was substantial. E.g., White v. State, 448 So.2d 970 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (improper questioning which disclosed results of prior hospitalization adverse to insanity theory); People v. Cole, 382 Mich. 695, 172 N.W.2d 354 (1969) (inadequate foundation for state witnesses on insanity issues); Commonwealth v. Hale, 467 Pa. 293, 356 A.2d 756 (1976) (testimony of State's only expert based upon interview tainted by Fifth Amendment violation); State v. Boyd, 692 P.2d 769 (Utah 1984) (testimony of State's psychologist based upon improper breathalyzer). We, therefore, conclude that the erroneous use of the evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment was not harmless, and that the conviction cannot be sustained.
The Fifth Amendment provides, in part: No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.] U.S. Const. amend. V. [20] Historically, the Fifth Amendment privilege has been interpreted to provide protection only where incriminating evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature is sought from a witness through the vehicle of state compulsion. As the Supreme Court has phrased it: [T]he privilege protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature[.] Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 914 (1966). See also State v. Grubbs, ___ W.Va. ___, 364 S.E.2d 824 (1987); State v. Harman, 165 W.Va. 494, 270 S.E.2d 146 (1980). The Fifth Amendment claim advanced by the defendant consists of two parts, which we examine separately: (1) that he was compelled by court order to produce incriminating communications made to his psychologists, and (2) that cross-examination of witnesses by the State revealed his privileged communications.
It is urged initially that the order requiring the defendant to produce the autobiography and other papers provided to his psychological experts violated his Fifth Amendment privilege. We do not agree. The Fifth Amendment protects only against compelled communications. It does not extend to the contents of documents which are obtained by compulsory process where such documents have been voluntarily prepared. This point was articulated in Fisher v. United States, supra , which involved a subpoena issued to the attorney of a taxpayer seeking production of tax work papers prepared by the taxpayer's accountants and delivered to the attorney. The Supreme Court rejected the attorney's Fifth Amendment challenge to the subpoena, [21] and held that the documents sought were neither compelled nor communicative. A subpoena served on a taxpayer requiring him to produce an accountant's work papers in his possession without doubt involves substantial compulsion. But it does not compel oral testimony; nor would it ordinarily compel the taxpayer to restate, repeat, or affirm the truth of the contents of the documents sought. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment would not be violated by the fact alone that the papers on their face might incriminate the taxpayer, for the privilege protects a person only against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communications.... [A]s far as this record demonstrates, the preparation of all of the papers sought in these cases was wholly voluntary, and they cannot be said to contain compelled testimonial evidence, either of the taxpayers or of anyone else. The taxpayer cannot avoid compliance with the subpoena merely by asserting that the item of evidence which he is required to produce contains incriminating writing, whether his own or that of someone else. 425 U.S. at 409-10, 96 S.Ct. at 1580-81, 48 L.Ed.2d at 55. (Citations and footnotes omitted). As Fisher explains, no Fifth Amendment right is implicated merely by the inculpatory nature of documents which are subject to production inasmuch as their contents were not created under any compulsion. [22] Thus, so far as the defendant argues that the contents of the papers produced by him were incriminating, his Fifth Amendment claim is without merit. The Fisher Court recognized, however, that the very act of producing documents in response to a subpoena may involve aspects of communication. The act of production impliedly acknowledges (1) the existence of the subpoenaed documents, (2) possession of the documents by the defendant, and (3) the defendant's belief that the documents produced are those sought. Such tacit admissions may rise to the level of Fifth Amendment protection where they are incriminating. In Fisher, no self-incrimination was found because the papers subject to the subpoena had been prepared by the taxpayer's accountant. Consequently, a tacit admission could not be connected to the taxpayer since he did not prepare the papers and could not vouch for their accuracy. The documents would not be admissible in evidence against the taxpayer without authenticating testimony. Without more, responding to the subpoena in the circumstances... would not appear to represent a substantial threat of self-incrimination. 425 U.S. at 413, 96 S.Ct. at 1582, 48 L.Ed.2d at 57. Following Fisher, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 104 S.Ct. 1237, 79 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984), which affirmed a lower court order quashing a subpoena for business records kept by a sole proprietor. The Court in Doe did not provide any substantial elaboration on Fisher `s tacit admission rule as constituting testimonial self-incrimination. It concluded that where papers had been prepared by a person subject to a subpoena duces tecum, the possibility of testimonial self-incrimination existed if production of the papers authenticated them sufficiently to make them admissible in evidence. [23] Thus, under the principles expressed in Fisher and Doe, the order of production was violative of the Fifth Amendment only if the act of producing the papers was incriminating. Here, the papers sought to be produced were wholly unrelated to the primary question of guilt or innocence. They were not admitted at trial and, consequently, the issue of their existence, custody, and authenticity was irrelevant. We, therefore, hold that the production order did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
The defendant argues alternatively that the State violated his Fifth Amendment privilege by cross-examining the defense psychologists regarding his participation in wife swapping. For purposes of his alternative argument, the defendant does not object to the production of the papers, but to the State's use of his communications in its interrogation of witnesses. We are referred by the parties to Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), in which a defendant in a murder case was required to undergo a psychological examination to assess his competency to stand trial. He was determined to be competent, and was subsequently tried and convicted by a jury. At the penalty phase of trial, the psychologist who had conducted the competency examination was called to testify. He relied in part upon the results of the pre-trial examination, and concluded that the defendant posed a danger to the community. The Supreme Court reversed, and held that the communications made by the defendant during the court-ordered mental examination were privileged. Of more relevance is the recent case of Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 2906, 97 L.Ed.2d 336 (1987), where the defendant raised a mental status defense to a murder charge under Kentucky law. [24] His sole witness was a social worker who, in her direct testimony, read from several psychological papers and reports in the custody of the Kentucky Department of Human Services. This information bore upon the defendant's poor mental condition. On cross-examination, the State's attorney had the witness read portions of a report from an earlier mental examination taken with the defendant's consent. This report tended to undermine his defense by portraying the defendant as sophisticated and manipulative. A Fifth Amendment challenge was made, which the Supreme Court rejected because the statements were not a result of a compelled psychiatric examination: [I]f a defendant requests such an evaluation or presents psychiatric evidence, then, at the very least, the prosecution may rebut this presentation with evidence from the reports of the examination that the defendant requested. The defendant would have no Fifth Amendment privilege against the introduction of this psychiatric testimony by the prosecution. 483 U.S. at ___, 107 S.Ct. at 2917-18, 97 L.Ed.2d at 355. The Court in Buchanan stressed that the questioned report was the product of an earlier psychiatric evaluation jointly consented to by the defendant and the State. It also pointed out that the information was obtained through cross-examination of the defendant's witness and did not relate to any inculpatory facts about the crime itself. This case is controlled by Buchanan for two reasons. First, like statements made at an agreed-to examination, the defendant's communications to his own psychologists were neither actually nor presumptively compelled. It was the defendant who raised the insanity defense, and he voluntarily conferred with psychologists in aid of that defense. There is no suggestion of either improper coercion or custodial setting. In short, the statements were not the product of State compulsion. Second, and more to the point, the disclosed communications did not in any way serve to inculpate the defendant. As was stressed above, wife swapping bore no relevance to the crime with which the defendant was charged. Rather, the questions posed by the State's attorney legitimately probed the basis of the psychological testimony. Thus, for Fifth Amendment purposes, the State's use of the defendant's communications in its cross-examination of witnesses was a permissible rebuttal purpose under Buchanan. [25] See also, Watters v. Hubbard, 725 F.2d 381 (6th Cir. 1984); Noggle v. Marshall, 706 F.2d 1408 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1010, 104 S.Ct. 530, 78 L.Ed.2d 712 (1983); State v. Janis, 356 N.W.2d 916 (S.D.1984).
The habeas court concluded that, insofar as the production order reached material in the hands of the defense psychologists, it violated the attorney-client privilege. As we earlier pointed out, courts have concluded that where an attorney retains an expert to assist in the defense of the case and requests the client to communicate information to that expert, the attorney-client privilege generally embraces such communications. [26] The habeas court seemed to be of the view that because an attorney-client privilege attached to the material delivered to the defense psychologist, the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was implicated. Several courts have implied that the attorney-client privilege has some connection to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. E.g., DeMassa v. Nunez, 770 F.2d 1505 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Alvarez, 519 F.2d 1036 (3d Cir.1975); State v. Pratt, 284 Md. 516, 398 A.2d 421 (1979). We decline to pursue this point as it seems somewhat obscure. [27] The privilege originated at common law, and has as its principal object the promotion of full and frank discourse between attorney and client so as to insure sound legal advice or advocacy. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); State v. Burton, 163 W.Va. 40, 254 S.E.2d 129 (1979); 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2290 (McNaughton rev. 1961). As earlier stated in our Fourth Amendment discussion, we believe that the attorney-client privilege extended to the communications between the defendant and his psychologists. [28] However, it is well-settled that the privilege may be waived if disclosure of privileged communications is made to third parties. We recognized this principle in State v. Burton, supra , where statements by the defendant and his attorney were made in front of third parties who later testified about them. We concluded that to be subject to the privilege, the communication between the attorney and client must be intended to be confidential. Syllabus Point 2, in part. [29] Faithful to this rule, courts have recognized that voluntary testimony by a psychologist with regard to the privileged communications waives the privilege. It also appears that voluntary testimony as to any part of a privileged communication operates as a waiver as to all. E.g., United States v. Alvarez, supra ; State v. Kociolek, 129 A.2d 417, 23 N.J. 400 (1957); see generally, 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2327 (McNaughton rev. 1961). We thus conclude that the testimony by the defense psychologists in this case waived whatever attorney-client privilege might have attached to the communications. [30]