Attorney-Client Privilege: Should Illegally Obtained Evidence of the Privileged Communication be Admissible?
Keywords:
Attorney-Client Privilege, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Admissibility, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), Exclusionary Rule, Sixth Amendment (USA), Moral Integrity ApproachAbstract
This research paper examines the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence of attorney-client privileged communications in India and the United States. In India, the general approach is to admit relevant evidence regardless of its source, potentially allowing illegally obtained privileged communication as evidence. The United States, on the other hand, has a clear exclusionary rule, barring such evidence to protect the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The paper analyses the Indian legal framework, by briefly mentioning the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) provisions on privileged communication and relevant Supreme Court case law. It also delves into the US legal system, examining the exclusionary rule, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, and the Sixth Amendment's protection of attorney-client relationships. In conclusion, the paper advocates for India to adopt a moral integrity approach as opposed to the US deterrence approach. This approach argues that preserving legitimacy of the process is more important than factual accuracy and advocates for upholding the integrity of the legal process.
References
Charles A. Miller, ‘The Challenges to the Attorney-Client Privilege’ [1963] 49 Virginia Law Review 2, 262.
Richard C. Wydick, ‘The Attorney-Client Privilege: Does It Really Have Life Everlasting?’ [1999] 87 Kentucky Law Journal 4, 1168. Relied on Swindler and Berlin v. United States.
Shweta Goyal, ‘Privilege Communication Between Advocate and Client’ [2020] 6 Journal of Legal Studies and Research 5, 355.
Shawn T. Gaither, ‘The Attorney-Client Privilege: An Analysis of Involuntary Waiver’ [2000] 48 Cleveland State Law Review 2, 311.
Manavendra Mishra, Susnah Naushad and Virendra Vikram, ‘Legal Privilege in Attorney-Client Communication: India’ (2023) The Legal Privilege Uncovered
<https://www.khaitanco.com/sites/default/files/2024-02/TheLegalPrivilegeUncovered.pdf > accessed 30 August 2024, 1.
Richard J. Hunter and John H. Shanon, ‘Assessing Confidentiality in the Lawyer-Client Relationship: A Client Perspective’ [2022] 9 Advances in Social Sciences Journal 10, 418.
ibid, 419.
James Aaporekuu, ‘Confidentiality and Attorney-Client Privilege’ (Research Gate, January 2022)
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358140266_CONFIDENTIALITY_AND_ATTORNEY- CLIENT_PRIVILEGE> 3.
The utilitarian justification for the privilege is that it promotes full, truthful communication between the client and the attorney. This free communication allows attorneys to give their clients better legal advice and legal service, which in turn creates the greatest good for everyone involved in the administration of justice. (see supra 2, 1169.)
There are other statues as well that deal with such communication, however, this paper will only examine the provisions in BSA.
Supra 4, 312.
S.N. Jain, ‘Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence’ [1980] 22 Journal of Indian Law Institute 3, 321.
ibid, 322.
Khagesh Gautam, ‘The Unfair Operation Principle and The Exclusionary Rule: On The Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Criminal Trials in India’ [2017] 27 Indiana Int’l & Comp. Law Review 2, 148.
Hirday Virdi and Ishani Mukherjee, ‘Rethinking Doctrine of ‘Fruits of Poisonous Tree’ into Indian Jurisprudence’ [2021] 4 International Journal of Law Management and Humanities 1, 223.
Harikisandas Gulab das & Sons v. State of Mysore, 27 S.T.C. 434.
supra 12, 323.
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 (1) SCC 471.
Magraj Patodia v. R.K Birla and Ors 1971 AIR 1295.
ibid, 21.
Y. S. Nagree v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 147.
ibid, 9.
supra 14, 148.
supra 14, 149.
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, (1974) 1 SCC 345.
supra 14, 162.
supra 14, 161.
As can be inferred from the above case laws that, the judiciary is not concerned with the source of evidence, it is only concerned with If the evidence is relevant to the case.
Weeks v. United States, 1232 U.S. 383 (1914).
Yuval Merin, ‘Lost Between The Fruits and The Tree: In Search of a Coherent Theoretical Model for the
Exclusion of Derivative Evidence’ [2015] 18 New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 2, 283.
supra 12, 321.
supra 29, 284.
Kartik Gupta, ‘Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence in International Arbitration’ [2022] 11 NLIU Law Review 2, 88.
Editors of Pennsylvania Law Review, ‘Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. A Plea for Relevant Criteria’ [1967] 115 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 7, 1138.
supra 30, 291.
supra 30, 292.
supra 30, 292.
Joshua T. Friedman, ‘The Sixth Amendment, Attorney-Client Relationship and Government Intrusions: Who Bears The Unbearable Burden of Proving Prejudice?’ [1991] 40 Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law 109, 110.
Robert P. Mosteller, ‘Admissibility of Fruits of Breached Evidentiary Privileges: The Importance of Adversarial Fairness, Party Culpability, and Fear of Importance of Adversarial Fairness, Party Culpability, and Fear of Immunity’ [2003] 81 Washington University Law Review 4, 980.
In re Shell Oil Refinery, 143 F.R.D. 105 (E.D. La. 1992).
supra 39, 981.
Southeast Banking, 212 B.R.
supra 39, 987.
supra 39, 997.
Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985).
United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823, 833 (2d Cir. 1985).
supra 39, 998.
supra 39,999. Also see Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 1995).
supra 30, 279.
supra 30, 279.
supra 30, 280.
