Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

U.S. v.

595 F.2d 1321 April 23, 1979


Legislator McPartlin and the Ingram Corporation entered into a deal wherein the
latter would give the former, political contributions amounting to $450000 so that
thecomoany would be awarded a multi-million dollar contract for the hauling of sewage.
Benton, a vice president of Ingram Corp., was privy to all the exchanges of money
between the McPartlin group and Ingram and in certain instances was the go between.

A federal grand jury investigated these dealings. Benton was an unindicted co--
defendant who served as a witness for the prosecution. The prosecution relied heavily
on testimonies of Benton and the contents of a business calendar he kept detailing the

An investigator for Ingrams counsel interviewed Mc. Partlin with with the
consent of his counsel for the purpose of determining whether there was a basis to
challenge Bentons entries. Ingram counsel used this in court to which McPartlins
counsel objected arguing that they fell under the attorney-client privelege.

Whether or not McPartlin is entitled to the attorney-client privilege in objecting to
the inclusion of the statement he gave to ingrams investigator?

Held: Yes

McPartlin was entitled to the attorney-client privilege because his statements

were made in confidence to the counsel of a co-defendant for a common purpose
related to both defenses. In fact ingrams lawyer acknowledged communications by a
client to his own lawyer remian priveleged even when the lawyer subsequently shares
them with co-defendant for the purpose of common defense.

Uninhibited communication among joint parties and their counsel about matters of
common concern is often important to the protection of their interests. In criminal cases,
it can be necessary to a far opportunity to defend. Its waiver cannot be inferred from the
disclosure in confidence to a co-partys attoryney to a common purpose.

If the case was be decided locally,the decision rendered would be the same. The
application of American jurisprudence holds suggestive influence and guidance in
deciding local cases especially in cases where our locally law is similar to or culled from
US law. If the case was to be decided under the proposed revised rules of evidence, the
decision will still be the same for the same reason mentioned above.