Ex parte Watkins

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Ex parte Watkins

439 So. 2d 798, 1983 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4637

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedAugust 2, 1983

Docket3 Div. 870

StatusPublished

This text of 439 So. 2d 798 (Ex parte Watkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte Watkins, 439 So. 2d 798, 1983 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4637 (Ala. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough review and consideration of the record and the briefs and oral arguments of all the parties and the amicus curiae, this Court makes the following findings: (1) Petitioner Watkins has not shown the existence of any attorney-client relationship or privilege that would excuse or justify his refusal to disclose to the Montgomery County Grand Jury the names of the Montgomery police officers who allegedly provided information concerning police brutality and abuse in what has commonly been referred to as “The Todd Road Incident.” Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622, 206 So.2d 868 (1968). (2) Even if the existence of an attorney-client relationship were found, the names and identities of the client-officers are not within the attorney-client privilege under the facts of this case. In re Enzor, 270 Ala. 254, 117 So.2d 361 (1960). (3) Act No. 618, Section 9.03, 1973 Ala. Acts (August 28,1973), authorizing the council, the Mayor, or any person or committee authorized by either of them, to conduct investigations as to municipal affairs did not create any executive, legislative, or other governmental privilege that would authorize or justify the withholding of material evidence from a duly constituted grand jury. (4) Neither this same Act nor any other makes information received by a councilman conducting such an investigation privileged or confidential. (5) This Court finds there is no procedural defect associated with the ruling of the circuit court.

Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that the order of the circuit court of July 18, 1983, citing Petitioner Watkins for contempt, be upheld and that the petition filed in this cause seeking review and relief from that order be denied. The order of this Court of July 22, 1983, staying the imposition of the fine imposed on Petitioner Watkins shall remain in effect until a final disposition of the petition.

BOWEN, P.J., and TYSON, HARRIS and HUBERT TAYLOR, JJ., concur. SAM W. TAYLOR, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough review and consideration of the record and the briefs and oral arguments of all the parties and the amicus curiae, this Court makes the following findings: (1) Petitioner Watkins has not shown the existence of any attorney-client relationship or privilege that would excuse or justify his refusal to disclose to the Montgomery County Grand Jury the names of the Montgomery police officers who allegedly provided information concerning police brutality and abuse in what has commonly been referred to as “The Todd Road Incident.” Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622, 206 So.2d 868 (1968). (2) Even if the existence of an attorney-client relationship were found, the names and identities of the client-officers are not within the attorney-client privilege under the facts of this case. In re Enzor, 270 Ala. 254, 117 So.2d 361 (1960). (3) Act No. 618, Section 9.03, 1973 Ala. Acts (August 28,1973), authorizing the council, the Mayor, or any person or committee authorized by either of them, to conduct investigations as to municipal affairs did not create any executive, legislative, or other governmental privilege that would authorize or justify the withholding of material evidence from a duly constituted grand jury. (4) Neither this same Act nor any other makes information received by a councilman conducting such an investigation privileged or confidential. (5) This Court finds there is no procedural defect associated with the ruling of the circuit court.

Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that the order of the circuit court of July 18, 1983, citing Petitioner Watkins for contempt, be upheld and that the petition filed in this cause seeking review and relief from that order be denied. The order of this Court of July 22, 1983, staying the imposition of the fine imposed on Petitioner Watkins shall remain in effect until a final disposition of the petition.

BOWEN, P.J., and TYSON, HARRIS and HUBERT TAYLOR, JJ., concur. SAM W. TAYLOR, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 So. 2d 798, 1983 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-watkins-alacrimapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack