Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
Does not matter. That little detail known as 'client privilege', a privileged communication cannot be used as evidence in court.
|
I think there are exemptions if they believe the communications involved both the client and the lawyer intending to make a crime.
But fair enough. From the reporting it seems they might after stuff other than that which would be protected by attorney-client privilege. Mostly because this article:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ege/501564002/
Quote:
There will also be a "taint team" to examine everything before it is handed over to prosecutors to make sure that those conducting the case never see any material that might be "tainted" by attorney-client privilege.
The only way the prosecution would be permitted to examine any material that might otherwise fall under the attorney-client umbrella is if it is determined to be part of a crime jointly undertaken by the attorney and the client. But for the privilege to be nullified, Litman said the taint team would have to get the approval of the court to present the material to the prosecution.
In order to fall under attorney-client protection, the documents just have to be related to Cohen dispensing legal advice or gathering information in order to give that advice, Litman said. But merely having an attorney involved does not guarantee the protection.
|