Judge signs search warrant for defense attorney's office

WTF??

Our rights as Americans are under attack.

Again, where's the FBI in all this?

anon wrote:

Our rights as Americans are under attack.

You'd better believe they are. People are just starting to notice it, but it's been happening since the mid-80's (as foretold) and has escalated rapidly under the "9/11" umbrella.

This is no frickin joke and there's nothing funny about it. Agree with you fully anon.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/07...

"Collin County judge approves search warrant for defense lawyer's files

Maybe the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will finally find a use for that 1856 attorney client privilege rule after all!

The CCA earlier this year postponed proposed changes to attorney-client privilege rules for criminal defense lawyers after a largely blog-generated outcry. The court had proposed getting rid of provisions that Judge Cathy Cochran in a guest post on Grits called a "vestigial tail" with "no wag," arguing that because no evidence had been excluded based on the rule in many moons, it could be safely deleted without troubling attorneys' historic protections.

Defenders of the rule argued that even though the rule had not been interpreted by the courts in many years, it still contained "sympathetic magic" which prevented judges from crossing so clearly drawn a threshold. In other words, judges knew they could never get away with violating privilege, so there were no cases telling them they couldn't do so.

That recent episode made me doubly interested to learn via Bill Baumbach at the Collin County Oberver that "Judge Mark Rusch of the 401st District Court in Collin County apparently issued a search warrant at the request of the DA's office for defense attorney files in a murder case before his court." KRLD Radio reported the search warrant "may be a first in Texas."

This'll be one to watch. It's also another moment that makes me wonder what's the matter with the Collin County justice system?"

Louis wrote:

Again, where's the FBI in all this?

Good question.

1984 is here wrote:

<quoted text>
You'd better believe they are. People are just starting to notice it, but it's been happening since the mid-80's (as foretold) and has escalated rapidly under the "9/11" umbrella.
This is no frickin joke and there's nothing funny about it. Agree with you fully anon.
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/07...
"Collin County judge approves search warrant for defense lawyer's files
Maybe the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will finally find a use for that 1856 attorney client privilege rule after all!
The CCA earlier this year postponed proposed changes to attorney-client privilege rules for criminal defense lawyers after a largely blog-generated outcry. The court had proposed getting rid of provisions that Judge Cathy Cochran in a guest post on Grits called a "vestigial tail" with "no wag," arguing that because no evidence had been excluded based on the rule in many moons, it could be safely deleted without troubling attorneys' historic protections.
Defenders of the rule argued that even though the rule had not been interpreted by the courts in many years, it still contained "sympathetic magic" which prevented judges from crossing so clearly drawn a threshold. In other words, judges knew they could never get away with violating privilege, so there were no cases telling them they couldn't do so.
That recent episode made me doubly interested to learn via Bill Baumbach at the Collin County Oberver that "Judge Mark Rusch of the 401st District Court in Collin County apparently issued a search warrant at the request of the DA's office for defense attorney files in a murder case before his court." KRLD Radio reported the search warrant "may be a first in Texas."
This'll be one to watch. It's also another moment that makes me wonder what's the matter with the Collin County justice system?"

What is the matter with the Collin County justice system is that it is completely broken, both on the civil sise and the criminal side. We need to turn all the rascals like Sandoval out.

anon wrote:

<quoted text>
What is the matter with the Collin County justice system is that it is completely broken, both on the civil sise and the criminal side. We need to turn all the rascals like Sandoval out.

I agree. The problem is perpetuated by the voters not having options on the ballot. Look at what happened to Sandoval when Wooten took him on.

Until we have a crop of honest hard working lawyers that are willing to run against our dishonest and arrogant judges things will never change.

Did anyone read the article on the McKinney Courier Gazette website?

http://planostar.com/articles/2008/07/22/brea...

Judge Rusch issued the warrant after the defense attorney refused to testify and produce to the grand jury evidence that the DA's office believed the the defense attorney had in his possession. Attorney client privilege does not extend to the attorney potentially hiding evidence on their client's behalf. They have an ethical duty to turn in such information if it comes into their possession.

Where is the outcry that a defense attorney potentially was hiding evidence in a capital murder case? He was asked by the Grand Jury, completely separate from Judge Rusch, to come and produce this evidence and refused. After the Grand Jury indicted the guy, then it fell to the DA's office to pursuse this potential evidence that they believed the defense attorney to be hiding. The only legal way to do that is with a search warrant, and since Judge Rusch is assigned to the case, that fell to him to authorize.

Mail being sent out of jail is subject to reading and review by the police. Letters telling the wife to hide evidence (the recipet indicated in the article) is suggestive of a future crime, in which case the spousal privilege is null and void.

If you read the information presented (which I tend to think still isn't even the entire story), Judge Rusch went out of his way to ensure that this very controversial and unique situation was as tightly controlled as it could be. There was a completely separate attorney there to oversee the search by the police to ensure that attorney client privilege wasn't violated. If there were things looked at that the police shouldn't have been looking at, then that separate attorney wasn't doing his job either!

Unique situation? Absolutely. Unprecedented? Probably. But so were the actions of the defense attorney based on this information. Perhaps this situation will help remind defense attorneys that their office is not a sanctuary - your client can't hide things there just because of attorney client privilege.

Judge Rusch is one of the most intelligent, honorable, trustworthy and dedicated people we have on the bench in Collin County. He is no Sandoval.

The other question I would have is apparently this happened in February - if it was such a problem and such a violation of attorney client privilege, why is it not being brought up until July, nearly 5 months after the search happened?

Anon wrote:

Did anyone read the article on the McKinney Courier Gazette website?
http://planostar.com/articles/2008/07/22/brea...
Judge Rusch issued the warrant after the defense attorney refused to testify and produce to the grand jury evidence that the DA's office believed the the defense attorney had in his possession. Attorney client privilege does not extend to the attorney potentially hiding evidence on their client's behalf. They have an ethical duty to turn in such information if it comes into their possession.
Where is the outcry that a defense attorney potentially was hiding evidence in a capital murder case? He was asked by the Grand Jury, completely separate from Judge Rusch, to come and produce this evidence and refused. After the Grand Jury indicted the guy, then it fell to the DA's office to pursuse this potential evidence that they believed the defense attorney to be hiding. The only legal way to do that is with a search warrant, and since Judge Rusch is assigned to the case, that fell to him to authorize.
Mail being sent out of jail is subject to reading and review by the police. Letters telling the wife to hide evidence (the recipet indicated in the article) is suggestive of a future crime, in which case the spousal privilege is null and void.
If you read the information presented (which I tend to think still isn't even the entire story), Judge Rusch went out of his way to ensure that this very controversial and unique situation was as tightly controlled as it could be. There was a completely separate attorney there to oversee the search by the police to ensure that attorney client privilege wasn't violated. If there were things looked at that the police shouldn't have been looking at, then that separate attorney wasn't doing his job either!
Unique situation? Absolutely. Unprecedented? Probably. But so were the actions of the defense attorney based on this information. Perhaps this situation will help remind defense attorneys that their office is not a sanctuary - your client can't hide things there just because of attorney client privilege.
Judge Rusch is one of the most intelligent, honorable, trustworthy and dedicated people we have on the bench in Collin County. He is no Sandoval.

You say that the DA's office BELIEVED that there was POTENTIAL evidence that the defense attorney was hiding. Though your argument is well written I am not convinced that the search warrant was indeed legal. Clearly there must be an investigation as to the facts of this case.

Anon wrote:

The other question I would have is apparently this happened in February - if it was such a problem and such a violation of attorney client privilege, why is it not being brought up until July, nearly 5 months after the search happened?

Good question Anon. There must be some reason that this case has been suddenly brought to our attention.

I just think that if the defense attorney cooperated with the search warrant, which he apparently did if a search took place, and had such an issue with it being a violation of attorney/client privilege, then it should have been questioned THEN...the timing of this is fishy to me. When was the trial for Bell supposed to begin before all this came up?

What questions do you still have regarding the legality of the search warrant? A defense attorney's office is not sacred ground, and attorney/client privilege does not extend towards potentially hiding evidence on a client's behalf. I say potentially not because of the DA's reasoning behind obtaining the warrant, but just because I am not a party to this issue and I, like all of us here, don't have all of the facts, just information based on what is reported in the media.

Search warrants are routinely issued because of a reasonable belief that there is potentially criminally relevant informaiton that needs to be sought/investigated. Based on the letters that the defendant wrote and apparent cooraborating testimony from a family friend (per the Gazette article), that belief appears to have been justified.

To help ensure the tightness and legality of the warrant because yes, this is unique, I grant that, he went above and beyond the normal protections of search and seizure and appointed an unbiased third party, an attorney, to oversee the search to ensure the attorney/client privilege wasn't violated. Does that make sense for someone to do who is willfully looking to violate that privilege? And if what rumors and innuendo abound the internet is "accurate" (I tend to think not) and the police looked through every file that the defense attorney had, etc., would it not be obvious then that the attorney who was supposed to help the defense attorney and his client maintain their privileged communication have fallen down on the job?

Again, my quesiton remains, where is the concern that an attorney was potentially hiding evidence in a capital murder trial? Is it not clear to everyone else that this entire mess could have been avoided if the defense attorney had responded appropriately to the Grand Jury's subpoena from the get go? If the guy didn't have anything of his client's in his office, why couldn't he just go and say so to the Grand Jury? He would not have had to say anything regarding the privileged communication, but instead he refused, and the DA's office was forced to go this route. It's like they say, you shouldn't have a problem if you have nothing to hide...

I still think there is a lot of information that we don't know and that we may never know because we are not the judge, the defense attorney, the police, etc. We were not there when the search warrant was issued, when it was served, or what happened afterwards. All we know is what is reported in the media and through Open Records Requests. I think the responsible route for all parties is to wait and see what comes of this rather than screaming to hang the judge. Just my two cents on the matter for what it's worth!

http://planostar.com/articles/2008/07/22/brea...
The Texas Attorney General has stepped in on behalf of Judge Rusch and Judge Dry (who apparently issued the Grand Jury Subpoena).

Anon wrote:

Did anyone read the article on the McKinney Courier Gazette website?
http://planostar.com/articles/2008/07/22/brea...
Judge Rusch issued the warrant after the defense attorney refused to testify and produce to the grand jury evidence that the DA's office believed the the defense attorney had in his possession. Attorney client privilege does not extend to the attorney potentially hiding evidence on their client's behalf. They have an ethical duty to turn in such information if it comes into their possession.
Where is the outcry that a defense attorney potentially was hiding evidence in a capital murder case? He was asked by the Grand Jury, completely separate from Judge Rusch, to come and produce this evidence and refused. After the Grand Jury indicted the guy, then it fell to the DA's office to pursuse this potential evidence that they believed the defense attorney to be hiding. The only legal way to do that is with a search warrant, and since Judge Rusch is assigned to the case, that fell to him to authorize.
Mail being sent out of jail is subject to reading and review by the police. Letters telling the wife to hide evidence (the recipet indicated in the article) is suggestive of a future crime, in which case the spousal privilege is null and void.
If you read the information presented (which I tend to think still isn't even the entire story), Judge Rusch went out of his way to ensure that this very controversial and unique situation was as tightly controlled as it could be. There was a completely separate attorney there to oversee the search by the police to ensure that attorney client privilege wasn't violated. If there were things looked at that the police shouldn't have been looking at, then that separate attorney wasn't doing his job either!
Unique situation? Absolutely. Unprecedented? Probably. But so were the actions of the defense attorney based on this information. Perhaps this situation will help remind defense attorneys that their office is not a sanctuary - your client can't hide things there just because of attorney client privilege.
Judge Rusch is one of the most intelligent, honorable, trustworthy and dedicated people we have on the bench in Collin County. He is no Sandoval.

I respect your thoughts about Judge Rusch and don't know the answer. However, I am not aware that any evidence was found or letters sent. I heard it was based on the DA overhearing a hall confersation. Where is the probable cause? Of course, if Rusch is a good judge, it makes him look bad when the system continues to support such bad judges with no comment.

Per the news articles by the McKinney Courier Gazette

"The DA’s office submitted the search request for Gore’s office on W. Virginia Parkway after Frisco police learned Gore may have received evidence from Bell’s wife, Linda, including a pair of shoes that he wore during the initial murder and letters detailing escape plans and suicide attempts, according to the warrant affidavit."
http://planostar.com/articles/2008/07/22/brea...
"The Collin County Detention Center monitored Mr. Bell’s outgoing letters since his initial arrest last January. Sheriff’s deputies discovered a letter addressed to his wife on Feb. 6 that discussed an orange shoebox containing a receipt that could be “crushal”(sic) to the case and instructed her to keep it. Another letter dated Feb. 8 to Mrs. Bell discussed how he planned to escape from the jail, according to the affidavit. A Frisco police detective spoke to a friend of Mrs. Bell’s identified in the affidavit as “Shawna” in late February. She accompanied Mrs. Bell to the Collin County Courthouse on Feb. 21 for Mr. Bell’s grand jury appearance.
“[Shawna] told the affiant (the Frisco police detective) that in the parking lot, among other things, Linda Bell stated to her that the ‘dumb bastards’ think they have the shoes that her husband Mark Bell was wearing at the time of the murder,” the affidavit stated,“but that she (Linda Bell) has given the boots he (Linda Bell’s husband) was wearing to ‘Gore’ along with letters her husband had sent to her from jail.”"
http://planostar.com/articles/2008/07/20/brea...

Anon wrote:

Per the news articles by the McKinney Courier Gazette
"The DA’s office submitted the search request for Gore’s office on W. Virginia Parkway after Frisco police learned Gore may have received evidence from Bell’s wife, Linda, including a pair of shoes that he wore during the initial murder and letters detailing escape plans and suicide attempts, according to the warrant affidavit."
http://planostar.com/articles/2008/07/22/brea...
"The Collin County Detention Center monitored Mr. Bell’s outgoing letters since his initial arrest last January. Sheriff’s deputies discovered a letter addressed to his wife on Feb. 6 that discussed an orange shoebox containing a receipt that could be “crushal”(sic) to the case and instructed her to keep it. Another letter dated Feb. 8 to Mrs. Bell discussed how he planned to escape from the jail, according to the affidavit. A Frisco police detective spoke to a friend of Mrs. Bell’s identified in the affidavit as “Shawna” in late February. She accompanied Mrs. Bell to the Collin County Courthouse on Feb. 21 for Mr. Bell’s grand jury appearance.
“[Shawna] told the affiant (the Frisco police detective) that in the parking lot, among other things, Linda Bell stated to her that the ‘dumb bastards’ think they have the shoes that her husband Mark Bell was wearing at the time of the murder,” the affidavit stated,“but that she (Linda Bell) has given the boots he (Linda Bell’s husband) was wearing to ‘Gore’ along with letters her husband had sent to her from jail.”"
http://planostar.com/articles/2008/07/20/brea...

May and could be crucial are rather vague words to be used in any case much less a case involving murder.

Anon Out West wrote:

<quoted text>
May and could be crucial are rather vague words to be used in any case much less a case involving murder.

Much less violating client/attorney priviledge. If we lose that, the police state will have taken over.

anon wrote:

<quoted text>
Much less violating client/attorney priviledge. If we lose that, the police state will have taken over.

The AG just ruled that Roach's and Rusch's actions were wrong. The Collin County courts are out of control

anon wrote:

<quoted text>
The AG just ruled that Roach's and Rusch's actions were wrong. The Collin County courts are out of control

No it didn't, "AG opposes subpoenas of Rusch and Dry"...the AG opposes the action of subpoenaing (?) Judges Rusch and Dry in the case, not the subpoenas that they issued. Read beyond the headline, don't just read the title!
http://www.courier-gazette.com/articles/2008/...

Where could that information be located? The last information I've seen online about the AG was that he was stepping in on behalf of Judge Rusch and Judge Dry to object to the subpoenas they have been issued? Nothing about objecting to their actions...it would be great to see your source on that