AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was indicted for failing to appear at trial on a felony charge scheduled for January 25, 2016. This indictment followed a hearing on January 8, 2016, where the Defendant and one of his prior lawyers were informed of the trial date. The State sought pretrial interviews of the Defendant's prior lawyers to determine the communication about the trial date to the Defendant (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that attorney-client privilege does not apply to discussions regarding the Defendant's trial date for the purpose of pretrial discovery in a case where the Defendant is prosecuted for willful failure to appear at trial on a felony charge (para 1).
• Defendant: Opposed the State's motion for pretrial interviews of prior lawyers, relying on the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege, the prosecutor’s responsibility not to subpoena a lawyer in a criminal proceeding, lawyers’ general duties of loyalty and confidentiality, and the lack of ambiguity in the trial judge’s statement about the trial date (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the district court's order denying the State's motion for pretrial interviews of the Defendant's prior lawyers (para 4).
• Whether the attorney-client privilege excludes discussions regarding the Defendant's trial date from the scope of pretrial discovery in a case prosecuting the Defendant for willful failure to appear at trial on a felony charge (para 1).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge M. Monica Zamora, Judge Julie J. Vargas, and Judge Megan P. Duffy, unanimously concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the State's appeal. The Court determined that the State does not have a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based right to appeal the district court's order denying the motion for pretrial interviews. The Court found that the district court's application of attorney-client privilege was not contrary to law and that the State's appeal did not meet the requirements for review under the collateral order doctrine. The Court emphasized the district court's discretionary authority in managing discovery and applying privileges based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The State's failure to conclusively determine a disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and demonstrate that the issue would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment led to the dismissal of the appeal (paras 4-18).