Interviewing Codefendants in Criminal Cases
Adopted: July 13, 1990
Opinion concerns several situations in which an attorney who represents a criminal defendant wishes to interview other individuals who are represented by attorneys who will not agree to permit the attorney to interview their clients. In the first inquiry, Attorney A wishes to interview criminal defendant B, who has been indicted in a separate indictment from Attorney A's client. In the second inquiry, Attorney A wishes to interview criminal defendant B, who has been named as a criminal coconspirator with Aclient, but has not yet been joined as a codefendant for trial. In the third inquiry, Attorney A wishes to interview a coconspirator who was named in the same indictment with A's client.
Inquiry #1:
Defendant Smith is charged in a one-count indictment with first degree rape. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Smith enters a plea of guilty to second degree rape. The agreement also calls for Smith to give truthful testimony if called upon to do so. The Government agrees to make known the extent of Smith's cooperation at time of sentencing. In the process of cooperating pursuant to the plea agreement, Smith gives information which tends to implicate Jones in the same offense of first degree rape. Smith has not been sentenced.
Jones is then charged in a separate indictment with first degree rape. Jones' lawyer telephones Smith's lawyer and asks permission to interview Smith. Smith's lawyer refuses. Jones' lawyer nevertheless sends his investigator to interview Smith. After being informed of the identity of the investigator and his employer, and for whom he is working (Jones), Smith consents to the interview. In the process of the interview, Smith gives a statement which completely exonerates Jones on the rape charge by telling a story which conclusively indicates that the victim consented to intercourse.
Jones' lawyer takes the report of interview to the prosecutor and tells him that he may as well go ahead and dismiss the indictment against Jones. Prosecutor telephones Smith's lawyer, who tells him that he forbade the interview. Prosecutor then accuses Jones' lawyer of unethical conduct.
Has Jones' lawyer violated Rule 7.4?
Opinion #1:
Yes. Rule 7.4(a) provides that a lawyer shall not "communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyers knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so." The comment to the Rule indicates that the Rule "covers any person, whether or not a party to a formal proceeding, who is represented by counsel concerning the matter in question." In this situation Smith, though not technically a party to the criminal case against Jones, is obviously represented by counsel concerning the matter of the alleged rape. Having been refused authority to interview Smith by Smith's lawyer, Jones' lawyer could not then ethically discuss the case with Smith.
Inquiry #2:
Smith, Jones, and Williams are indicted for conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. Pursuant to State practice, each is indicted in separate indictments. However, the conspiracy counts name Smith, Jones, and Williams as coconspirators. The State has not yet moved to join the indictments for trial. Each defendant retains counsel.
Williams' attorney asks the attorneys for Smith and Jones for permission to interview their clients. They refuse. Later, Williams' attorney learns that Smith and Jones wish to talk to him. Williams' attorney relays this information to the attorneys for Smith and Jones. They still refuse to permit the interviews.
Despite these objections, Williams' attorney and his investigator meet with Smith and Jones. They tell Smith and Jones that they are employed by Williams, that they are working for Williams' best interests in the case, that Smith and Jones do not have to talk, that they are free to call their lawyers if they wish before speaking to him, and that they are free to terminate the interview at any time. Smith and Jones consent to the interview.
Has Williams' attorney violated Rule 7.4 by conducting the interviews of the codefendants in light of refusal by counsel to permit same?
Opinion #2:
Yes, although technically Smith, Jones, and Williams have not yet been made parties to the same criminal cases, they are "parties" known to be represented by counsel in the same matter, a conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. As such, they may not be interviewed concerning the case without their lawyer's consent.
Inquiry #3:
The facts are the same as stated in Inquiry No. 2, except that Smith, Jones, and Williams are indicted in federal district court for conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. All are indicted in the same indictment.
Has Williams' attorney violated Rule 7.4 by conducting the interviews of the codefendants in light of refusal by counsel to permit same?
Opinion #3:
Yes. Under the facts stated, Smith, Jones, and Williams are all parties to the same action and are each represented by counsel. Williams' attorney may not interview Smith or Jones over the objection of their attorneys. The fact that Smith and Jones appear to be willing to discuss the matter with Williams' attorney does not change the answer. Rule 7.4(a).