On Point: E. Privilege, Ch. 905

State v. Frederick Robertson, 2003 WI App 84
For Robertson: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where principal issue concerned the complainant’s credibility, indication first revealed after conviction that she had been treated for depression with psychotic features around the time of the incident required in camera inspection to determine whether her mental health records must be disclosed to the defense.

This case arrives at the unmapped intersection of postconviction discovery and privileged records.

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion
For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold

Issue/Holding: Viability of State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993) upheld, against claim by state that it should be overturned. ¶22 n. 4. State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391,

State v. Marc Norfleet, 2002 WI App 140
For Norfleet: Alan D. Eisenberg

Issue/Holding: Once the trial court reasonably determines that disclosure of an informant’s identity is required, there is no need to hold an in camera hearing, ¶¶13-14.

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: The attorney-client privilege shields statements from attorney to client, such as billing records only to the extent that disclosure would “reveal[] the substance of lawyer-client communications.” ¶40. The undisputed record here shows that the sought billing records “contain detailed descriptions of the nature of the legal services rendered to [the client]. Producing the attorney billing records would,

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: A former officer and director of a corporation is not entitled to waive the corporation’s attorney-client privilege, even with regard to information generated during the person’s corporate tenure. Under the “entity rule,” the privilege belongs solely to the corporation, and only the corporation may waive it. ¶¶33-35.

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: Although a mere allegation is insufficient, the burden for establishing a prima facie case of the attorney-client crime-fraud exception is low — reasonable cause (i.e., more than suspicion but less than preponderance-of-evidence) to believe that the attorney’s services were utilized in furtherance of the ongoing unlawful scheme. ¶50, quoting United States v. Chen,

In Re: A Witness Before the Special Grand Jury, 288 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002)

Issue/Holding: Privilege between government lawyer and client — state agency — does not extend to criminal proceedings such as grand jury investigation.

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion
For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold

Issue/Holding: The court modifies the threshold showing required for an in camerainspection, in favor of “a slightly higher standard,” namely a “‘reasonable likelihood’ that the records will be necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence.”¶32.

¶34. Based on the above considerations,

State v. Joseph F. Rizzo, 2002 WI 20, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 57, 241 Wis. 2d 241, 624 N.W.2d 854
For Rizzo: Franklyn M. Gimbel

Issue: Whether the prosecution opened the door to otherwise privileged “Shiffra” evidence.

Holding:

¶51. Before trial, the circuit court found that there was nothing relevant in D.F.’s treatment records that was not also in Dr.

State v. Terrance W. Walther, 2001 WI App 23, 240 Wis. 2d 619, 623 N.W.2d 205
For Walther: Raymond M. Dall’Osto, Kathryn A. Keppel

Issue: Whether the defendant’s motion for in camera inspection of the child sexual assault complainant’s confidential records should have been granted.

Holding:

¶11 Here, Walther established more than the mere possibility that the requested records ‘may be necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence.’