Formal Opinion No. 102: Use of Subpoenas in Criminal Proceedings
Publication year | 1998 |
Pages | 93 |
1998, June, Pg. 93. Formal Opinion No. 102: Use of Subpoenas in Criminal Proceedings
Vol. 27, No. 6, Pg. 93
The Colorado Lawyer
June 1998
Vol. 27, No. 6 [Page 93]
June 1998
Vol. 27, No. 6 [Page 93]
Departments
CBA Ethics Committee Formal Opinions
Formal Opinion No. 102: Use of Subpoenas in Criminal Proceedings
CBA Ethics Committee Formal Opinions
Formal Opinion No. 102: Use of Subpoenas in Criminal Proceedings
The following Formal Opinion was written by
the Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar Association
the Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar Association
[Formal Ethics Opinions are issued for advisory purposes only
and are not in any way binding on the Colorado Supreme Court
or its Grievance Committee and do not provide protection
against disciplinary actions.]
102 Formal Opinion No. 102: Use of Subpoenas in Criminal
Proceedings
Adopted March 21, 1998
Adopted March 21, 1998
Introduction
This opinion addresses problems related to the misuse of
subpoenas duces tecum in criminal proceedings.1 Effective
October 31, 1996, Rule 17(c) of the Colorado Rules of
Criminal Procedure was modified to require the subpoenaing
party forthwith provide a copy of a subpoena duces tecum to
opposing counsel (or directly to the defendant if
unrepresented) upon issuance. The rule change was deemed
necessary, in part, because some attorneys have misused
subpoenas duces tecum in criminal proceedings to obtain
exclusive reviews of information, documents, photographs and
other objects or reviews earlier than opposing counsel or an
unrepresented defendant
Syllabus
In a criminal proceeding, a lawyer may not issue or cause to
be issued a subpoena for production of information
documents, photographs or other objects designated therein (a
subpoena duces tecum) without providing a copy of the
subpoena to opposing counsel or an unrepresented defendant
when and as required by the applicable Rules of Criminal
Procedure and governing law, unless a valid court order
provides otherwise. Any attempt at subterfuge to knowingly
violate the requirements of applicable rules to obtain an
exclusive review of information, documents, photographs or
other objects or a review earlier than other counsel or an
unrepresented defendant is unethical.
It also is unethical for a lawyer to knowingly mislead the
person upon whom a subpoena duces tecum has been served into
disclosing privileged or confidential information that the
witness would not otherwise knowingly reveal or be compelled
to reveal except at the designated criminal proceeding and
under judicial scrutiny.
If information, documents, photographs or other objects are
inadvertently received from a witness on whom a subpoena
duces tecum has been served that the lawyer knows to be, or
that appear on its face to be privileged or confidential,2
then the lawyer receiving such information has an ethical
obligation to refrain from reviewing the information after
becoming aware of the privileged or confidential nature of
the information. The lawyer then has an ethical duty to
notify the adverse party, if unrepresented, or the adverse
party's lawyer and the producing witness. A lawyer must
also take reasonable steps to notify the person entitled to
invoke the privilege with respect to the information that the
lawyer possesses such information and either follow the
instructions of the person who is entitled to invoke the
privilege with respect to the information or refrain from
reviewing the information until a definitive resolution is
obtained from the court or other tribunal.
Opinion
Rule 17(c) of the Colorado and Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure confers upon a witness subject to a subpoena duces
tecum certain procedural and substantive rights.3 For
instance, if the person upon whom the subpoena duces tecum is
served...
To continue reading
Request your trial