Opinion ID: 6325142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Madera’s Required Showing

Text: ¶59 Drawing guidance from Madera, we conclude that, before undertaking an in camera review of the allegedly ineffective counsel’s case file, the court must find that there is an adequate factual basis to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that an in camera review of the materials may reveal that the attorney-client privilege does not protect all of the documents in the case file. See Madera, 112 P.3d at 690. Under Madera, the court is called upon to use a six-part analytical framework to ascertain whether the moving party has established the requisite factual basis. Id. at 691. The court should determine: (1) as precisely as possible, the information sought to be discovered, (2) whether the information is relevant to a matter at issue, (3) whether the information could be obtained by any other means, (4) whether the information is privileged, (5) if it is privileged, whether the privilege has been waived, [and] (6) if it is privileged, but has been waived, . . . the scope of the waiver. 28 Id.3 ¶60 Recall, though, that we didn’t consider section 18-1-417 in Madera. And this is the first time we analyze the interplay between the statute and the case. ¶61 We now hold that after the allegedly ineffective counsel has produced the confidential information covered by the automatic waiver in section 18-1-417(1), the court may grant a request for an in camera review of the allegedly ineffective counsel’s entire case file if the prosecution clears the hurdle set forth in Madera. In the event the court finds that the prosecution has satisfied the Madera standard, it should order the allegedly ineffective counsel to produce the entire case file for an in camera review to determine whether there is additional information related to the ineffective assistance claim advanced. After any in camera review, the court must disclose to the prosecution claim-related information not previously produced. ¶62 Because the court here didn’t apply the analytical framework in Madera, it failed to make the required determination. On remand, the court must apply Madera and make appropriate findings. 3 Madera moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim. P. 32(d), not Crim. P. 35(c). Madera, 112 P.3d at 689. But we see no basis to decline to apply our analysis there to a Crim. P. 35(c) motion to withdraw. 29