Court Opinion

ID: 9557794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:57:38.912179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:01.838103
License: Public Domain

*503MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE
dissenting and concurring:
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that enactment of Section 16-5-204(4)(d), C.R.S. 1973 (1977 Supp.) effected an implied repeal of the practice of permitting a grand jury witness to consult with an attorney outside the grand jury room concerning potentially incriminating questions.
I agree with the portion of the majority opinion that the provisions requiring an attorney present in the grand jury room to take an oath of secrecy are valid.
I do not agree with the majority position that the grand jury has the power to forbid a lawyer from representing two or more clients before a grand jury. I think any citizen has a constitutional right to employ counsel of his choice providing that counsel wishes to represent him. I do not believe that any grand jury has the authority to deprive him of that right.