IANAL, but as I understand it they can only use that information if they can show that they would have found it without the inadmissible information. If the priest telling them about the child is the impetus to start the investigation, all further information found based on that is inadmissible. It’s still fruit from the poisoned tree.
What the police have to show is Inevitable Discovery would have happened without the priest’s evidence. But by your scenario that is not the case.
Thanks. Makes sense and I can see why it is done this way.
I think my one sticking point here is preventing an ongoing (or future) crime.
It is one thing to apply that standard to something that happened and will not happen again (e.g. John Doe was murdered…he cannot be murdered again).
It is another thing to apply it to a child who is suffering ongoing abuse. It amazes me that if I told police that toddler Jane Doe was being sexually abused that the police would have to ignore it if I had not obtained that information legally.
I would hope there would be some means to intervene on Jane Doe’s behalf. They can deal with my illegally obtained info later.
Nm
Again, IANAL or in law enforcement, but I don’t think there is an absolute block to the police acting on inadmissible information. They may not be able to use information obtained in a court case, but if they have information that someone is being held prisoner they can free that person. They may have to make a legal case through other means (or not at all). But the prisoner will be free. Or if they find illegal drugs/child porn/stolen good the contraband doesn’t have to be returned.
Again, not a lawyer, so if the real experts would weigh in I’d be grateful.
I’m interested in this too. Long ago I started a thread where I asked if “fruit from the poisoned tree” could be used to exculpate someone falsely accused of wrong doing and got mixed answers. I would have thought it’s a no-brainer - we don’t want innocent people to be jailed/executed and any information that could prevent this should be used. Of course if that info pointed to a different perpetrator, then the police would be out of luck using it to arrest, but at least the innocent person would be freed.
BTW, I was more referring to a hostage or someone held illegally for nefarious purposes, not an inmate. I have absolutely no idea how this could or couldn’t be used to release an inmate.
If a priest or lawyer chooses to violate the confidentiality, does that make the evidence they provide inadmissible? (How about a doctor?) Presuming, of course, this violation was freely done by the professional and not in any way coerced by the police?
As far as I can see, the confidentiality (particularly of the confessional) is more like a gentleman’s agreement that the law offers not to coerce the parties to break. It’s not like, say, the prohibition against using torture or trickery on the part of the police to get information.
Did you mean “does that make the evidence they provide*** admissible***?”
The confidentiality (in most cases, there are exceptions) belongs to the penitent or the client, not to the priest or attorney. Testimony from the priest or lawyer is inadmissible unless the accused allows it. They can tell the police but the police can’t use that information or any information derived from it in court.
So if a priest tells the police that a parishioner confessed a murder to them, and the police go to the parishioner’s house and find the murder weapon what happens? AFAIK and IANAL (will some lawyers please answer these questions) the police can’t use the priest’s testimony, the murder weapon, or any other information derived from that part of the investigation at trial. Unless they manage to get the evidence in some other channel, but that’s an uphill climb.
Texas has a similar law, mandatory reporting overrides attorney-client privilege.
What I don’t get, though, is how a Texas/Oklahoma/other defendant could ever hire a lawyer under such circumstances. Suppose that John Doe is charged with allegations of abuse, and tries to hire an Oklahoma lawyer, but that lawyer is obligated to pass on everything he says to authorities. How is Doe going to be able to have any sort of effective legal defense?
How about a scenario in which the priest mails an anonymous letter to the police–“Soandso committed the murder of Suchandsuch on this date in that place. The murder weapon is located hereandthere” etc.?
I assume the police will look into it, and I assume the priest will have to confess his sin. But if he decides not to do the penance his confessor demands, or not to do it as quickly, so the guilty party is tried and sentenced and does serious time before the “sinning priest” confesses his “crime” to the church (and is thus absolved), what harm is done and to whom?
I assume the lawyer is only obliged to pass on admissions of guilty acts - so what you’d end up with is a lawyer that doesn’t get the details, and presumably first thing they would be obliged to do is tell their client “don’t tell me anything incriminating.” After all, if the person needs a lawyer, then the act is already known, so it’s not like a lawyer would have to report “I think my client may have raped so-and-so” if he’s already charged for it?
Has the law been challenged in court? I would imagine if the lawyer must report and so cannot hear the whole story, then the defendant can argue by default it’s poor legal representation.
IANAL but as I understand it, it is often advised for defendants to get ahead of the game and consult a lawyer if they think they might get in trouble for something, as opposed to waiting to be charged.
Say that John Doe is guilty of elder abuse (also a mandatory reporting category crime), having beaten up some elderly folks or something. Suppose he isn’t charged yet, but suspects he will be. Under such circumstances, in a state like TX or OK, he couldn’t consult an attorney because the attorney would be required to betray any words he says about the topic to authorities.
I’m not familiar with TX, but my understanding of this (and it is discretionary in WV, not mandatory for lawyers) is that if the client says, “I raped my 6 year old child last week” and the child is now out of the house, there is no duty to report because the child is no longer in danger. In that situation an attorney would be prohibited from violating privilege.
If the person said, “I raped my 6 year old child last week and I plan on continuing to rape the child” then in TX the mandatory (WV discretionary) rule requires the attorney to report his own client.
The idea is that society can tolerate a person getting away with something that already happened, but cannot tolerate allowing a preventable future bad thing to happen.
As I understand, that rule applies to everything. A lawyer cannot keep confidential (or is not obliged to? Cannot be party to?) about a client’s plans/intent to commit a future crime, as opposed to past crimes, if they explicitly know them. Which is why in bad TV shows, the lawyer always interrupt the bad guy with “Don’t ell me that! I can’t know about it!”
Wait, so are you saying that in TX, if a person hires a criminal defense attorney and says, “I raped my child last week and I am charged with it, help me out” the criminal defense attorney must then report that statement to the police???
How is that even remotely Constitutional?
The Lincoln Lawyer always says he is bound by what he knows and could never assist in perjury, so he does not want to hear you say you did it, because then he could not spin a different story at the trial.
That’s true, but a different issue. I typically want to know so I am not sending investigators on wild goose chases. Even if a client admits guilt to me, it is still permissible to challenge the State’s case and argue that they do not have sufficient evidence.
Having a client just not tell me that they are guilty leads to a waste of time and resources and invites me to put them on the stand where their lies will be torn to shreds by the prosecutor. These suave liars that you see in the movies aren’t my clients. 
I always want to know. That doesn’t mean that they don’t lie to me.
I am no lawyer (unlike you,) but yes, AIUI, that’s exactly what the Texas/Oklahoma laws mean. A defendant’s statements would be reported by the attorney to the police.
I don’t see how this is constitutional since it arguably denies the defendant a legit legal defense, but I’m guessing nobody has challenged it in the federal courts/SCOTUS yet and that’s why it still stands.
Totally and completely agree.
When I do a criminal intake, I usually start the discussion by explaining that, while they still have a choice in who they hire, even a potential client engaging in a consultation has the right to “attorney client confidentiality”. What that means is if they tell me that they just hacked up their friend and stuffed him in a freezer, I have to keep it secret (I usually go to that extreme because they are usually dealing with something far less serious, like a fight or drunk driving incident, and I’m trying to put them at ease).
The only exception, I explain, is if they tell me they are planning on going to do something: if you say you are planning on hacking up your friend and put him in the freezer, then I’d have to warn somebody.
And the reason that I lay this out for them is because I don’t want to waste my time tracking down leads that aren’t accurate or trying to confirm details that aren’t true. It’s unproductive and far less useful than dealing with the facts - no matter how distasteful - and the evidence which might prove those facts.
As I make an effort to explain, my job is to help, not judge. And so I appreciate candor, and don’t need to agree with my client to be their advocate.
Having said all that, I don’t know how I could possibly do the job if they couldn’t tell me about what they’ve already done without me having to report it. Confessions of prior bad behavior must be privileged if effective representing is to be provided.
A related question (to anyone else who might be knowledgeable about this): what about if the priest does not reveal that anyone confessed anything to him but urges people to act on the ramifications of this knowledge?
For example, suppose Mike confesses that he has an ongoing abusive relationship with little Timmy. So the priest can’t under any circumstances reveal that Mike confessed this to him. OK. But can he call up Timmy’s parents and say “I think you should keep a close eye on this guy Mike and any contact he might have with Timmy. I’ve heard/have reason to believe that there might be an abusive aspect to that relationship”?