Tex Watson is apparently selling his privileged conversations with his attorney in order to pay attorney fees
I might understand better if I had more information, but this is throwing me for a loop. If it’s Tex’s idea, I suppose I have no problem, but if he is coerced into it by the courts, that’s different.
Watson is almost surely indigent.
While an indigent may be forced to sell any asset to pay attorney fees, I do not see how privileged work product from his attorney could qualify as a sellable asset.
What if it results in new charges for Tex?
Can anyone explain this so that it’s not a circumvention of attorney/client privilege?
No. The tapes are an asset of the defunct law firm from Watson’s attorney at the time, Bill Boyd.
Watson is not part of any bankruptcy proceeding. He’s being asked to waive the privilege so that the police can review the tape. I assume his current attorney will want to review the tape first and determine the wisdom of agreeing to do this.
I suppose he could be a lousy attorney who does not understand Watson’s prerogative to do so.
It also occurred to me that since he has a once high profile case, he might get his name in the papers if he fusses over something, which is actually the hypothesis I’m leaning toward.
Or he could be a prudent attorney who realizes that if those tapes contain admissions against interest, they could still be the source of some direct of collateral liability for Watson.
It should be a concern, but on what grounds can he argue Tex can’t voluntarily waive privilege? That’s where the lousy attorney part comes in, not in lack of concern over the issue.
Other articles indicate that Watson waived privilege back in 1976 when he allowed an author writing a biography on him to listen to them. If he actually did admit to unsolved murders on them letting someone else listen to them would be profoundly stupid, but murdering people because Charles Manson asked you to isn’t exactly a smart move either.
I’m assuming that, since the waiver was given. if it isn’t voluntarily, intelligently and freely given, then there is no waiver.
I’m not asking whether the waiver exists or not (assuming the news story to be true) I am asking what his attorney could be thinking to argue against a valid waiver?
it could be the news story is inaccurate and this is exactly what his attorney is arguing. The story could be better written to say “the police claim Watson waived his right but his attorney disagrees” if so.
According to Bugliosi (I’m reading Helter Skelter), the judge was extremely biased towards Tex, even referring to him as “Poor Tex” at one point in chambers. Despite that, he was found guilty.
(Great book, btw, I’m almost finished. We had a thread awhile back about the possibility of Manson getting parole. Anyone who thinks he should should read it. That’ll give them pause)
If there exists, let’s say, a piece of paper with “I, Tex, waive my attorney client privilege,” and it’s signed by him, we might refer to it as a waiver. Even if that waiver were found to be ineffective in actually waiving the privilege.
I’d call it a “so-called” or “invalid” waiver if it weren’t valid. I never speak of non-things as the thing they might appear to be.
You know it doesn’t take a piece of paper to waive attorney/client privilege.
When I used to interview people to evaluate claims, my boss required me, (and I probably would have anyway), to warn people who brought third parties with them that if they insisted on that person staying in the room, they would be waiving attorney/client privilege. I know some other states do this too, but don’t know they ALL do; but I would presume so.
Since Tex allowed a third party to listen, if it was knowing and intelligent and voluntary, he waived privilege to this material long ago.
Well, while I have little sympathy for people to allow themselves to be so misguided, I do realize that if you take Charlie out of the picture, Tex and the girls probably would not have done what they did. They were badly manipulated. I’d have still convicted them as a juror, though. I’m not so sympathetic that I wouldn’t hold them accountable.
Susan Atkins renounced Charlie long ago: If I were on her parole board, I would take the chance she has been rehabilitated and give her a shot at parole. That is, if I had let others out on parole for murders as well. I would think the noteriety of the Helter Skelter crimes is no reason to treat her differently.
I have no sympathy for Charlie at all. I would never let him out on parole; he still thinks he was right, and would probably do it again.
Helter Skelter is a good book. I’ve read it twice and probably will again some day.