Posted on Oct 19, 2023
'A big deal': New Jack Smith filing reveals concessions made by Walt Nauta's lawyer
995
6
3
3
3
0
https://www.rawstory.com/trump [login to see] /
The prosecutor's additional briefing states that "Defendant Waltine Nauta’s attorney Stanley Woodward Jr. cannot ethically cross-examine former client Trump Employee 4, who will be a significant witness at trial," according to the document.
It was flagged by legal expert Katie Phang in a social media post. She noted the reason for this assertion is because Woodward used to represent the unnamed “Trump Employee 4” and currently represents “Witness 1.”
The prosecutor's additional briefing states that "Defendant Waltine Nauta’s attorney Stanley Woodward Jr. cannot ethically cross-examine former client Trump Employee 4, who will be a significant witness at trial," according to the document.
It was flagged by legal expert Katie Phang in a social media post. She noted the reason for this assertion is because Woodward used to represent the unnamed “Trump Employee 4” and currently represents “Witness 1.”
'A big deal': New Jack Smith filing reveals concessions made by Walt Nauta's lawyer
Posted from rawstory.com
Donald Trump
Crime
Palm Beach
Law
Ethics
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
I'm no Juris Doctorate, but I would think that ANY defendant's rights to counsel, in this case representation and ADVOCATE, cannot be trumped (no pun intended) because of concerns about a having previously been a prosecution witnesses attorney. In short, a defendant's rights outweigh the prosecution's concerns.
As for attorney client privilege - my GUESS is that the SCOTUS would rule that was voided by two related issues.
1. The attorney-client relationship was ended, though under normal circumstances, that confidentiality continues. That said however, what's more relevant -
2. Privilege is lost when said client decided, or agreed for whatever reason, to testify for the prosecution
Admittedly, I like Trump and feel he is being PERSECUTED more than prosecuted. However, as much as I abhor someone like, for example, Jane Fonda, I would say the exact same thing were she in a similar situation as Trump's predicament.
As for attorney client privilege - my GUESS is that the SCOTUS would rule that was voided by two related issues.
1. The attorney-client relationship was ended, though under normal circumstances, that confidentiality continues. That said however, what's more relevant -
2. Privilege is lost when said client decided, or agreed for whatever reason, to testify for the prosecution
Admittedly, I like Trump and feel he is being PERSECUTED more than prosecuted. However, as much as I abhor someone like, for example, Jane Fonda, I would say the exact same thing were she in a similar situation as Trump's predicament.
(0)
(0)
Patricia Overmeyer
SSG Bill McCoy: Your lack of a juris doctorate is why you don't understand why a defendant cannot be represented by an attorney who has represented another client that will now be testifying against the defendant represented by the same attorney. What you believe is right as to the law is not correct. Keep in mind that an attorney cannot serve two masters.
1. The attorney-client privilege cannot be waived by anyone but the client and the attorney-client privilege does not end when the client is no longer represented by the attorney. The attorney-client privilege doesn't end when the client is dead. The attorney-client privilege ends when the attorney dies. The attorney is bound to keep all that information confidential and secret unless a court orders it to be released.
An example was when I represented a client who later died. I could not be called to testify in the probate court until the court entered an order for me to testify and to release any documents I had in my possession. This is because I do not hold the attorney-client privilege. It was held by my deceased client.
2. The attorney-client privilege is not lost when the client decides to testify for the prosecution. See attorney-client privilege under 1. above.
3. The attorney-client privilege means that the attorney has information regarding his client, what his client has told him, etc. And that renders that attorney mute as to being able to utilize any of that information on cross-examination for his new criminal defendant client that was part of the criminal action with the former client. The attorney cannot use the information provided by the former client against that client when that client testifies against the defendant. That is what hamstrings the vigorous defense required by the law of a defendant. Therefore, there is not a full ability to advocate for the defendant client.
Jack Smith is correct in his assertion that Nauta's attorney is completely rendered useless on conducting cross-examination of his former client. If Nauta's attorney is allowed to continue as counsel of record (and if that is Cannon's ruling, I expect it to be immediately appealed because it would be incorrect law), then Nauta's attorney is hamstrung by the attorney-client privilege. Nauta now has an appeals issue that will undo any guilty verdict because he had ineffective assistance of counsel. A defendant cannot waive ineffective assistance of counsel because defendant's generally are not attorneys. Thus Jack Smith is heading off any appeals of "ineffective assistance of counsel" which could be raised by Nauta.
There is not a single court case that has held an attorney-client privilege can be waived by a client who is now testifying for the other side so as to allow the former attorney to cross-examine that client with information received during the relationship.
1. The attorney-client privilege cannot be waived by anyone but the client and the attorney-client privilege does not end when the client is no longer represented by the attorney. The attorney-client privilege doesn't end when the client is dead. The attorney-client privilege ends when the attorney dies. The attorney is bound to keep all that information confidential and secret unless a court orders it to be released.
An example was when I represented a client who later died. I could not be called to testify in the probate court until the court entered an order for me to testify and to release any documents I had in my possession. This is because I do not hold the attorney-client privilege. It was held by my deceased client.
2. The attorney-client privilege is not lost when the client decides to testify for the prosecution. See attorney-client privilege under 1. above.
3. The attorney-client privilege means that the attorney has information regarding his client, what his client has told him, etc. And that renders that attorney mute as to being able to utilize any of that information on cross-examination for his new criminal defendant client that was part of the criminal action with the former client. The attorney cannot use the information provided by the former client against that client when that client testifies against the defendant. That is what hamstrings the vigorous defense required by the law of a defendant. Therefore, there is not a full ability to advocate for the defendant client.
Jack Smith is correct in his assertion that Nauta's attorney is completely rendered useless on conducting cross-examination of his former client. If Nauta's attorney is allowed to continue as counsel of record (and if that is Cannon's ruling, I expect it to be immediately appealed because it would be incorrect law), then Nauta's attorney is hamstrung by the attorney-client privilege. Nauta now has an appeals issue that will undo any guilty verdict because he had ineffective assistance of counsel. A defendant cannot waive ineffective assistance of counsel because defendant's generally are not attorneys. Thus Jack Smith is heading off any appeals of "ineffective assistance of counsel" which could be raised by Nauta.
There is not a single court case that has held an attorney-client privilege can be waived by a client who is now testifying for the other side so as to allow the former attorney to cross-examine that client with information received during the relationship.
(2)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
Patricia Overmeyer - According to your profile, you ARE have a JD (are an attorney) so, logically, I have to defer to your opinion and knowledge of law.
Thanks for the input.
Thanks for the input.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google