Skinner v. State, 55A01-0811-CR-543 1st Dist; 01-28-10, Ind.App. Attorney: William Van der Pol, Jr.
Holding: On interlocutory appeal, Court affirmed denial of Defendant’s motion to compel disclosure of information from Defendant’s first attorney about his prior representation of State’s witness, Jason Wingler, because information Defendant sought does not fall within six exceptions to general rule barring disclosure of information obtained during attorney-client relationship. Ind. Professional Rule Conduct 1.6(b). See IC 34-46-3-1(1) (attorneys not required to testify about “confidential communications made to them during the course of their professional business.”) Determining whether information is discoverable requires balancing of factors such as: a) relevance of information, b) access to information from other sources, and c) nature and importance of any interests invaded. Paramount interest here in non-disclosure is attorney-client privilege between Defendant’s first attorney and Wingler. Potential relevance of information about Wingler is outweighed by importance of attorney-client privilege and by Defendant’s access to other information to impeach Wingler: a) Wingler’s convictions for crimes of dishonesty and b) Wingler’s demand for “guaranteed sentence modification” for two current sentences in exchange for his testimony. Held, denial of motion to compel disclosure of information affirmed.
