Court Opinion

ID: 9739240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:11:03.046234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.944734
License: Public Domain

DIANE S. SYKES, J.
¶ 62. (dissenting). I must strenuously dissent. The majority opinion applies a non-existent legal rule to facts that are not present in the case. Furthermore, the alleged evidentiary error *824upon which the majority reverses was not preserved by a timely objection from the defense, and was therefore waived.
¶ 63. The majority repeatedly states that the issue in this case is whether an attorney's "opinions, perceptions, and impressions relating to a former client's mental competency" are privileged under the attorney-client privilege. Majority op., ¶¶ 1-2, 17-18, 19, 22-23, 32, 40, 46, 53-54, 58, 61. This statement of the issue bears no relationship to the facts in the case. The attorney whose testimony is challenged on this review did not in fact render any "opinions, perceptions, or impressions" about a former client's mental competence.
¶ 64. What happened in the circuit court was this: Assistant State Public Defender Mary Scholle was subpoenaed by the state to testify at a competency hearing involving a former client, Jerry Meeks, who is charged in this case with felony murder. Scholle arrived at the hearing with counsel; Scholle, her counsel, and the prosecutor then discussed with the court the "arguable" attorney-client privilege implications of her testimony.
¶ 65. The issue was resolved when the prosecutor indicated that he did not intend to question Scholle regarding any attorney-client privileged communications, but, rather, would be pursuing a more general line of questioning. Meeks' counsel then objected to Scholle's testimony on relevance grounds, and suggested that the court instead take judicial notice of the transcripts and files in the cases on which Scholle had previously represented Meeks, as well as the obligation of every lawyer to raise the issue of his or her client's competence when there is a reason to do so. See generally State v. Johnson, 133 Wis. 2d 207, 395 N.W.2d *825176 (1986). The circuit court overruled the relevance objection. Meeks never asserted the attorney-client privilege to prevent Scholle from testifying.1
¶ 66. On direct and cross-examination, Scholle testified very generally about her background, training, and 15-years' experience as a criminal defense lawyer, which included representation of approximately 3,000 defendants, among them persons with mental health problems. She also testified about her general practices in representing clients, including those with mental health problems, and indicated that "in general, if I have any question as to a person's competency, their ability to understand, to make decisions, to know the various roles of the players in court, I would bring that to the attention of the court." She further testified that if she ever had a "scintilla of doubt" as to a client's competence, she would raise it with the court.
¶ 67. As to Meeks in particular, Scholle testified that she represented him on several cases in the mid-1990s, and briefly related certain basic public-record facts about that representation, including the fact that Meeks entered a guilty plea on one case and an Alford plea on another. Scholle was never asked for, and never *826offered, any testimony about her "opinions, perceptions, and impressions" about Meeks' mental competence. She was never asked, and never revealed, any confidential communications of her former client.
¶ 68. How, then, can the majority credibly assert that this case is about the admissibility of an attorney's "opinions, perceptions, and impressions" of a former client's mental competence when the attorney in question was not asked about and did not testify to any "opinions, perceptions, and impressions" of a former client's competence? The majority does not cite to any record testimony by Scholle that constitutes an "opinion, perception, or impression" of Meeks' competence, because there is none.
¶ 69. The majority responds to this inescapable reality by tepidly asserting in a footnote that "it seems quite clear that Scholle, through her testimony, did offer her opinions, perceptions, and impressions concerning Meeks' competency." Majority op., ¶ 8, n.4. If it is "quite clear" that Scholle testified as to her "opinions, perceptions, and impressions" of Meeks, one would expect the majority to identify at least one or two of those "opinions, perceptions, and impressions" to support its assertion. The fact that the majority does not do so means, of course, that it cannot do so — again, because there are none.
¶ 70. The majority also ignores the fact that any argument against the admissibility of Scholle's testimony on attorney-client privilege grounds was waived by Meeks' failure to object. The attorney-client privilege, Wis. Stat. § 905.03, is an evidentiary rule. The evidence code plainly provides that "[ejrror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected" and "a timely objection or motion to strike *827appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context." Wis. Stat. § 901.03(1)(a). Here, Meeks' attorney objected only to the relevance of Scholle's testimony. Meeks never objected or sought to prevent Scholle from testifying on attorney-client privilege grounds.
¶ 71. The privilege statute itself specifies that the attorney-client privilege "may be claimed by the client" or a representative of the client, including the client's lawyer. Wis. Stat. § 905.03(3) (subsection entitled "Who May Claim The Privilege"). With the one inconsequential exception noted above, supra, ¶ 4 n.1, the record is devoid of any indication that Meeks' attorney ever claimed or asserted the attorney-client privilege in order to prevent Scholle from testifying.2
¶ 72. Despite this waiver, and disregarding the undeniable fact that the specific issue the majority purports to decide is not actually present in this case, the majority plows ahead and decides the evidentiary privilege question anyway. In so doing, the majority acknowledges but ignores the overwhelming weight of authority finding no attorney-client privilege violation where an attorney's testimony is limited to observations *828about a client's competence and does not reveal the substance of confidential communications.3 Majority op., ¶ 35. Instead, the majority opts to follow "a number of other courts" which (the majority claims) "have held that disclosure of even non-verbal communications, such as the ones at issue here, violates the attorney-client privilege." Majority op., ¶ 36.
¶ 73. First of all, as I have noted, there is no evidence in the record that Scholle disclosed any communications from Meeks, either verbal or non-verbal. The majority does not identify the "non-verbal communications" it believes are cause for concern — again, because there are none. The majority's reference to a disclosure of "non-verbal communications, such as the ones at issue here" is totally mystifying.
¶ 74. In addition, the four cases that the majority has opted to follow in lieu of the overwhelming weight of authority do not in fact support the conclusion that the majority reaches here. Two of the four cases relied upon actually reached the opposite result, concluding that an attorney's observations about a former client's competence do not constitute privileged communications. The third case did not involve the issue of a client's competence at all, but rather, involved the admissibility of an attorney's opinion about the volun-tariness of his client's confession, as well as an actual *829disclosure of a confidential attorney-client conversation. The sole remaining case is likely no longer good law.
¶ 75. More specifically, the majority relies upon Gunther v. United States, 230 F.2d 222 (D.C. Cir. 1956), United States v. Kendrick, 331 F.2d 110 (4th Cir. 1964)(concurring opinion), Bishop v. Superior Court, 724 P.2d 23 (Ariz. 1986) and State v. Adams, 283 S.E.2d 582 (S.C. 1981). Majority op., ¶ 36.
¶ 76. Kendrick is fully consistent with the established line of authority that an attorney's observations about a client's competence are not privileged communications. Kendrick, 331 F.2d at 113-14. The majority acknowledges this, and includes Kendrick in the long list of cases that the majority has decided not to follow. Majority op., ¶ 35. The majority cites the concurrence in Kendrick as one of the "other courts" and "cases" which "hold" that an attorney's observations about a client's competence are protected by privilege. Majority op., ¶¶ 36-38. The Kendrick concurrence represented the minority view of two judges in an en banc federal appellate decision; it cannot be cited as "holding" anything at all. The majority paraphrases and quotes from the Kendrick concurrence, with attribution to "[t]he Kendrick Court," as if to suggest that Kendrick actually supports the majority's position, when in fact it does not. Majority op., ¶ 38.
¶ 77. The majority also relies upon Bishop, which, like Kendrick, held that an attorney's observations of a client's mental competence do not constitute privileged communications:
While few cases have dealt with this issue, the weight of authority supports the view that an attorney may testify at a competency hearing without violating *830the attorney-client privilege so long as the testimony does not include the substance of confidential communications. United States v. Kendrick, 331 F.2d 110, 114 (4th Cir. 1964) (objectively observable particulariza-tions of the client's demeanor and attitude not within the privilege if made at a time when neither lawyer nor client manifested any reason to suppose they were confidential); see also Darrow v. Gunn, 594 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1979), United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355, 360 (D.C.Cir. 1975); Clanton v. United States, 488 F.2d 1069, 1070 (5th Cir. 1974); Howell v. United States, 282 F.Supp. 246 (N.D.Ill. 1968), aff'd 442 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1971); United States v. Tom, 340 F.2d 127 (2nd Cir. 1965); Jones v. District Court, 617 P.2d 803, 808 (Colo. 1980).
[W]e will allow the testimony for several reasons. Observation of behavior is not a communication and therefore is not protected by the privilege. See Granger v. Wisner, 134 Ariz. 377, 379-80, 656 P.2d 1238, 1240-41 (1982); McCORMICK, EVIDENCE § 89 at 213 (3d ed. 1984)....
We therefore conclude that, in a competency hearing, the judge may call upon both counsel as officers of the court to provide whatever conclusions and opinions they may have, together with so much of the supporting facts as may be obtained without violating either the attorney-client privilege or the confidentiality provided to attorney's work product.
Bishop, 724 P.2d at 28-30.
¶ 78. Adams, another case relied upon by the majority, involved the admissibility of an attorney's opinion regarding the voluntariness of his client's confession, not his client's competence to stand trial. Adams, 283 S.E.2d at 585-86. In addition, the attorney in *831Adams actually "describe[d] one private conversation" he had with the client, a fact not present here. Id.
¶ 79. Finally, Gunther, also cited by the majority, is no longer good law in light of a decision of the same circuit nearly 20 years later reaching a different conclusion. Gunther was a three-paragraph per curiam opinion of the D.C. Circuit in which the court summarily concluded that trial counsel could not be called to testify at a post-trial hearing regarding a client's competence because of the danger that additional questions "could" be asked that would implicate the attorney-client privilege. Gunther, 230 F.2d at 223. Two of the three paragraphs in the Gunther per curiam recited procedural matters, and the court's summary conclusion about the attorney's testimony was more prophylactic than substantive: the court did not actually hold that an attorney's opinion about his client's competence was privileged, only that an attorney's testimony in this regard could open the door to questions about matters that were. Id.
¶ 80. In any event, in United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1975), the D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Bazelon, who had been on the panel in Gunther, held that "in making a competency determination it may be very useful for the trial judge to question both the defendant and his counsel." Id. at 360. The court further held that "counsel's first-hand evaluation of a defendant's ability to consult on his case and to understand the charges and proceedings against him may be as valuable as an expert psychiatric opinion on his competency." Id.; see also Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 450 (1992)(citing David, 511 F.2d at 360) ("defense counsel will often have the best-informed view of the defendant's ability to participate in his defense"). While the D.C. Circuit continues to apply *832David, see, e.g., United States v. Klat, 213 F.2d 697, 703 (D.C. Cir. 2000), the last, and only, time that it applied Gunther was in Seidner v. United States, 260 F.2d 732, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Given its conclusory nature, the Gunther per curiam has limited persuasive value in the first place; after David, it may no longer be held up as good law. See Manning, 766 S.W.2d at 556-57 (concluding that Gunther was essentially overruled by David).
¶ 81. In short, the majority has adopted an interpretation of the attorney-client privilege that has either extremely flimsy or no support in the extra-jurisdictional case law. As demonstrated above, there is in fact no "split" of authority in other jurisdictions, as the majority contends. Majority op., ¶ 35. The legal rule the majority adopts — that an attorney's opinions, perceptions, and impressions about a former client's mental competence are privileged — does not exist anywhere, inside or outside of Wisconsin.
¶ 82. More importantly, however, and setting aside the majority's misplaced reliance on the foregoing cases, the majority has grossly distorted the language and scope of the attorney-client privilege statute in its attempt to bring Scholle's testimony within the privilege.
¶ 83. The attorney-client privilege appears at Wis. Stat. § 905.03, which provides that the privilege protects "confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client." Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2). A communication is "confidential" within the meaning of the attorney-client privilege "if not intended to be disclosed to 3rd persons other than those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal ser*833vices to the client or those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication." Wis. Stat. § 905.03(1)(d).
¶ 84. It is well-established that "the [attorney-client] privilege protects 'communications,' not necessarily facts or evidence." State ex rel. Dudek v. Circuit Court, 34 Wis. 2d 559, 578, 150 N.W.2d 387 (1967). Thus, "it is the communications, not facts relevant to the controversy, which are shielded by the privilege." Id. at 580. "Wisconsin, like most jurisdictions, has recognized only a narrow ambit to the communications included within the attorney-client privilege." Id. at 579. We have also recognized that the attorney-client privilege, like all evidentiary privileges, is an obstacle to the truth and "should be 'strictly confined to within the narrowest possible limits consistent with the logic of the principle.'" Jax v. Jax, 73 Wis. 2d 572, 579, 243 N.W.2d 831 (1976)(citations omitted).
¶ 85. The majority seems to implicitly concede that Scholle's testimony did not directly implicate any confidential communication within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 905.03, because the majority explicitly rests its conclusion upon an interpretation of "the attorney-client privilege set forth in Wis. Stat. § 905.03 and SCR 20:1.6." Majority op., ¶ 61 (emphasis added); see also, majority op., ¶¶ 1-2. But SCR Chapter 20 does not "set forth" any evidentiary privileges at all, nor could it, as it is a code of ethics, not evidence. Indeed, the preamble to SCR Chapter 20 explicitly provides that the rules of professional responsibility "are not intended to govern or affect judicial application of either the attorney-client privilege or work product privilege." Wisconsin SCR Ch. 20, Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities.
*834¶ 86. Thus, by incorporating SCR 20:1.6 into the statutory attorney-client privilege, the majority has done what the preamble to SCR Chapter 20 says must not be done. The majority has determined the scope and application of the statutory attorney-client privilege by reference to the SCR rules, contrary to the expressed intent of those rules.
¶ 87. I am also extremely troubled by the significant overbreadth of the majority opinion. The majority concludes that Scholle's testimony violates the attorney-client privilege without evaluating any of the specific questions asked of Scholle or the answers she gave. This conflicts with the law, recited earlier in the majority opinion, that "[t]he party asserting the privilege bears the burden to establish that the privilege applies," that the privilege is to be "strictly and narrowly interpreted," and that the court must inquire into "the nature of the information sought" before concluding that the privilege applies. Majority op., ¶ 20 (quoting Franzen v. Children's Hosp. Of Wis., 169 Wis. 2d 366, 386, 485 N.W.2d 603 (Ct. App. 1992) and Jax, 73 Wis. 2d at 581). The applicability of the attorney-client privilege is typically evaluated on a question-by-question basis precisely to avoid overly broad invocations of the privilege that are inconsistent with its purpose and would thwart the discovery of the truth. How can the majority properly apply these legal principles if it reaches its conclusion without reference to the testimony that was actually sought and given?
¶ 88. The majority also broadly invokes "policy considerations" in support of its conclusion, majority op., ¶¶ 51-59, on the theory that "policy considerations play a fundamental role in protecting the very important relationship between attorney and client." Majority op., ¶ 59. I do not understand how the majority's *835ideas about policy can override the specific terms of a statutory privilege. The majority's evaluation of non-statutory "policy considerations" lead to the sweeping conclusion that "[cjonfidential communications must be interpreted to include both verbal and non-verbal communications in order to preserve inviolate the integrity of the attorney-client relationship." Majority op., ¶ 58. This is an extraordinary expansion of the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and there is no authority for it. The ramifications of this unwarranted extension of the privilege are unknown, but potentially far-reaching.
¶ 89. Finally, the majority's attempt to distinguish Johnson may have unforeseen implications for the duty of defense counsel to raise the issue of a client's competence when there is reason to do so. Johnson involved a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise the defendant's competence as an issue. Johnson, 133 Wis. 2d at 210-11. We held that "where defense counsel has a reason to doubt the competency of his client to stand trial, he must raise the issue with the trial court." Id. at 220.
¶ 90. The majority dismisses the inference that, consistent with her duty under Johnson, Scholle would have raised the issue of Meeks' competence had there been reason to do so. Majority op., ¶ 50. The majority rejects this very reasonable inference by speculating about other possible explanations for an attorney's silence in the face of the Johnson duty. Id. The inference that an experienced attorney would comply with her Johnson duty to raise the issue of competence does not become unreasonable or impermissible merely because there may be other possible explanations for the attorney's inaction. Choosing between competing inferences is the job of the factfinder — here, the circuit court. It is improper for an appellate court to weigh *836competing inferences, or, as the majority has done here, to completely rule out an otherwise reasonable inference that the factfinder was entitled to consider.
¶ 91. I must also strongly object to the majority's conclusion that "Scholle should have continued to protect the attorney-client privilege in her testimony by declining to give her opinions, perceptions, or impressions as to Meeks' competency to proceed." Majority op., ¶ 53. Once again, there is no evidence whatsoever that Scholle actually "gave" any "opinions, perceptions, or impressions" about Meeks' competence, and even if she had done so, there is no legal support for the proposition that an attorney's "opinions, perceptions, or impressions" about a former client's competence are "confidential communications" protected by the attorney-client privilege.
¶ 92. Implicit in the majority's assertion about what Scholle "should have" done is a conclusion that Scholle committed an ethical and legal wrong against her former client. The majority thus maligns the integrity of an experienced member of the bar by way of an opinion that is wholly unsupported in fact or law.
¶ 93. Finally, reversal is improper here unless the supposed erroneous admission of Scholle's testimony affected Meeks' substantial rights. Wis. Stat. § 901.03(1); see also Wis. Stat. §§ 805.18(2) and 972.11(1). Where the alleged error was not preserved by a timely objection, the error is waived and reversal is statutorily prohibited; the only exception is plain error. Wis. Stat. § 901.03(1)(a) and (4). The plain error rule of Wis. Stat. § 901.03(4) provides that even in the absence of a timely objection, a reviewing court may remedy a plain error, but only where the error implicates a violation of constitutional rights so serious that it affects the fundamental fairness and integrity of the *837trial court proceedings. Virgil v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 166, 192-93, 267 N.W.2d 852 (1978); State v. Vinson, 183 Wis. 2d 297, 515 N.W.2d 314 (Ct. App. 1994).
¶ 94. The majority makes no effort to engage in either a harmless error analysis under Wis. Stat. §§ 901.03(1) or 805.18(2) or a plain error analysis under Wis. Stat. § 901.03(4), hut simply reverses for a nunc pro tunc competency hearing "without consideration of Scholle's testimony." Majority op., ¶ 61. As such, the majority opinion compounds all its multiple mistakes by also ignoring the requirements of Wis. Stat. §§ 901.03, 805.18(2) and 972.11(1).4 For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.
¶ 95. I am authorized to state that Justice DAVID T. PROSSER, JR. joins this dissenting opinion.

 As noted, before testifying, Scholle herself, by counsel, raised with the court any "arguable" attorney-client privilege implications of her testimony, and the matter was resolved when the prosecutor agreed to keep his questions "at a high level of generality," to use the words of Scholle's counsel, Attorney William Tyroler. Also as noted, Meeks' attorney never asserted the attorney-client privilege to prevent Scholle's testimony, did not ask for a continuing objection on attorney-client privilege grounds once Scholle's testimony was underway, and only objected to one specific question on attorney-client privilege grounds.

 See, Darrow v. Gunn, 594 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1979); Clanton v. United States, 488 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Howell v. United States, 442 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1971); United States v. Tom, 340 F.2d 127 (2nd Cir. 1965); United States v. Kendrick, 331 F.2d 110 (4th Cir. 1964); Manning v. State, 766 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. Ct. App. 1989); People v. Kinder, 126 A.D.2d 60 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987); Jones v. District Court, 617 P.2d 803 (Colo. 1980).

 The majority responds by saying that the constitutional right to a fair trial is implicated if an incompetent person is subjected to a trial. Majority op., ¶ 53 n.11. Of course it is, and no one is saying otherwise. The material point, however, is that the majority has utterly failed to engage in any analysis whatsoever of the effect of Scholle's testimony on the determination of Meeks' competence. In order to justify a new competency hearing under either harmless error or plain error analysis, the majority must be able to conclude that Scholle's testimony so influenced the competency determination that but for her testimony, Meeks would have been found incompetent. See State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶¶ 29-30, 263 Wis. 2d 434, 666 N.W.2d 485 (reviewing court evaluates an error's harmlessness by evaluating the nature of the error and the harm it is alleged to have caused).