1

Stewart Versus Arizona Case

Student's Name

Institution Affiliation

Course

Instructor

Date
 2

Stewart Versus Arizona Case

Issue

The main issue in the Stewart v. Arizona case is the violation of Stewart's constitutional

rights of confidentiality. Stewart argues that there was a violation of the attorney-client privilege

when details and testimony from his private discussion with his then-attorney, James Careful,

were used in his trial for six counts of capital murder in Arizona. The main question is whether

James Careful violates the established legal protections surrounding attorney-client

communications. He disclosed Stewart's self-incriminating statements, in which he admitted to

the murders but claimed he was unable to control himself because of internal voices. In response,

the government might appeal the crime-fraud exception and claim that the discussion served to

further illegal activity. The court must strike a narrow balance to decide whether the

government's need for the information outweighs the constitutional right to private legal

representation, as stated in Ninth Circuit precedents like United States v. Henke(Batts,2020). The

outcome of this case will have significant ramifications for Stewart as well as the defense of the

attorney-client privilege and the constitutional rights of defendants falling under the jurisdiction

of the Ninth Circuit.

Relevant Law

In this Stewart Versus Arizona case, the relevant laws revolve around the Sixth

Amendment, attorney-client privilege, the crime-fraud exception, and Ninth Circuit precedent.

The Sixth Amendment is one of the legal defense strategies for individuals charged with crimes.

It guarantees the right to counsel (Ossei-Owusu, 2019). This right was first recognized in the

Gideon v. Wainwright case(1963), ensuring that those who cannot afford it can get legal
 3

representation. The Strickland v. Washington (1984) case implemented a two-pronged test to

assess claims of ineffective legal assistance, further defining the bounds of this right (Ossei-

Owusu, 2019). Proof of both subpar performance and the ensuing bias is needed. These case

studies serve as an overview of the constitutional foundation, which safeguards the accused

against potential inadequacies in their legal counsel and forms the basis of a fair and impartial

legal system.

Attorney-client privilege is another pertinent legal framework. It promotes open and

sincere communication between lawyers and their clients, acting as the cornerstone of the legal

system. This essential component of the attorney-client relationship is codified in Federal Rule of

Evidence 501, which demonstrates a long-standing comprehension of the need to safeguard

confidential communications from unnecessary disclosure (Capra & Richter, 2019). The broad

privilege encompasses all communications made in confidence to obtain legal counsel or

assistance. It is based on the idea of encouraging transparency and trust (Batts, 2020). Attorney-

client privilege guarantees clients any information shared will be confidential will be kept

private, which allows them to open up. Thus, through this assurance ,clients can communicate

openly and honestly with their attorneys.

The crime-fraud exception is another important law. This law states that communications

made in support of fraud or criminal activity should not be covered by the attorney-client

privilege. Crime-fraud exception puts a restriction on the unalienable nature of attorney-client

privilege. This exception recognizes that unlawful behavior cannot be concealed by the integrity

of the attorney-client relationship. The exception, which was established by the Supreme Court

in United States v. Zolin (1989), necessitates a prima facie demonstration that the client sought

legal counsel intending to aid or support unlawful activity(Kosmidis & Duffy,2022). The
 4

demonstration entails the need to have solid proof that the lawyer was hired to help commit a

crime or commit fraud to claim the crime-fraud exception. The Zolin case articulates a cautious

and stringent threshold that upholds the delicate equilibrium between safeguarding attorney-

client privilege and avoiding its abuse for illicit purposes.

Another relevant law is the use of Ninth Circuit precedent. United States v. Henke is a

specific useful case in the Ninth Circuit. The Henke case served as a reminder of the importance

of attorney-client privilege and the necessity of exercising caution when evaluating exceptions

(Batts,2020). The court stated that any deviation from the privilege should be kept to a minimum,

weighing the government's genuine interests against the rights of the accused. Thus, this law

necessitates the need to balance between maintaining the honesty of the attorney-client

relationship and recognizing the legitimate requirements of law enforcement.

Application

The Sixth Amendment is used in cases to protect the right to legal counsel. Stewart may

have suffered a reduction in the right to legal representation due to the violation of the attorney-

client privilege. This violation raises questions about his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In

Strickland v. Washington(1984), the Supreme Court developed a two-part standard to evaluate

claims of ineffective legal representation( Ossei-Owusu,2019). Whether counsel performed

inadequately and whether that performance hurt the defendant's case must be decided by the

court.

Attorney-client privilege was violated in this case. In this instance, Stewart had a private

conversation with his lawyer, James Careful, in which he revealed details of the killings. There

was a violation of the attorney-client privilege because the information was admitted into
 5

evidence during the trial(Batts,2020). United States v. Henke, is one noteworthy case that applied

this law. The Henke case recognized that a client's voluntary disclosure of private data to a third

party could establish a waiver of the attorney-client privilege (Batts,2020). The court, however,

stresses the significance of a voluntary waiver and carefully considers any government access to

private correspondence.

The crime-fraud exception is also applied in cases. Given that Stewart admitted to the

killings during the conversation with Careful, the government may claim the crime-fraud

exception. The government's claim that the communication was made in support of illegal

activity is strengthened by the later discovery of the murder weapon and pertinent files on

Stewart's computer. United States v. Zolin states the basics of the crime-fraud exception e which

need to be examined by the court (Kosmidis & Duffy,2022). This examination will determine

whether they are met in this specific case.

Taking into account the 9th Circuit's guidance in Henke, the court must exercise caution

in weighing the government's interest in obtaining information pertinent to the case against

attorney-client privilege(Batts,2020). The court should exercise caution and prudence in

evaluating exceptions to the privilege. Henke emphasizes the necessity of weighing the

government's need for the information against the basic importance of maintaining the attorney-

client relationship.

Conclusion

The utilization of data and testimony provided by Stewart's former lawyer, James Careful

violated basic constitutional principles. The attorney-client privilege must be carefully weighed

by the court against any potential exceptions, such as the crime-fraud exception. The Henke
 6

decision set by the Ninth Circuit offers guidance on the delicate balancing act needed in these

situations, highlighting the significance of protecting the confidentiality of attorney-client

communications.
 7

References

Batts, J. (2020). Rethinking Attorney-Client Privilege. Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 33, 1.

Capra, D. J., & Richter, L. L. (2019). Poetry in Motion: The Federal Rules of Evidence and

Forward Progress as an Imperative. BUL Rev., 99, 1873.

Kosmidis, J., & Duffy, J. (2022). Crime-Fraud Litigation in White-Collar Prosecutions. Dep't of

Just. J. Fed. L. & Prac., 70, 17.

Ossei-Owusu, S. (2019). The Sixth Amendment Façade: The Racial Evolution of the Right to

Counsel. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1161-1239.