RUSH, Chief Justice.
A criminal suspect’s state and federal rights to counsel and confrontation of witnesses are essential to a fair trial. Here, police officers and a prosecutor eavesdropped on a criminal suspect’s pre-inter-rogation consultation with his lawyer, overhearing information regarding both evidence and trial strategy. Then, when called to testify about that eavesdropping in depositions and a suppression hearing, the officers’ invocation of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination left the suspect with no means of
confirming what they heard. The parties agree — as well they should — that the State’s egregious misconduct violated the suspect’s constitutional rights. Their dispute is only how to remedy that violation.
We hold that the State’s intrusion is presumptively prejudicial. But that presumption does not necessarily require blanket suppression — as the trial court here ordered — of all testimony from witnesses who pleaded, the Fifth Amendment about the eavesdropping. Rather, the State can rebut the presumption by disproving prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt for every item of tainted evidence and testimony.
Thus, even though the officers’ testimony is presumptively tainted by the eavesdropping, they may yet have an independent basis for certain limited testimony, such as routine evidentiary foundation for the unsuppressed exhibits. On those matters, their credibility may be sufficiently “collateral” that neither their Fifth Amendment privilege nor the suspect’s confrontation or cross-examination rights will be materially impaired. But because testimonial taint can be subtle and difficult to detect, the State must prove an independent basis
beyond a reasonable doubt
for the entire substance of each witness’s testimony. We.therefore reverse and remand the prospective blanket suppression of those witnesses’testimony.
Facts and Procedural History
On March 14, 2014, at some time before 7:30 a.m., Brian Taylor’s grandfather dropped him off at the Michigan City Police Department and told him not to talk to the police. Police officers escorted the blood-covered Taylor to an interview room, where he apparently stayed while they investigated. Within hours, police discovered the body of Taylor’s girlfriend, Simone Bush, at her grandparents’ residence, with a fatal gunshot wound through the neck. Subsequently, at around 3:20 p.m., police arrested Taylor and asked him to sign a document waiving his right to an attorney. He refused.
.Around 4:00 p.m., Taylor’s attorney David Payne arrived.at the police station, and Chief Deputy Prosecutor Robert Neary and Sergeant Steve Westphal accompanied him to the interview, room. Sergeant Westphal told Attorney Payne that he should “flip a toggle switch” on the wall “unless you want us listening to your conversation.” At 4:12 p.m., Attorney Payne flipped the switch and began talking with his client.
Attorney Payne’s conversation with Taylor whs transmitted by a live audio feed into a large conference room next door— known at the station as the ‘War Room”— where the chief deputy prosecutor and an unknown group of police detectives were listening. For the next thirty to forty minutes, the War Room group listened in as Taylor and his attorney discussed “all aspects” of the case;' including location of evidence and defense trial strategy. According to Chief Deputy Prosecutor Neary, the officers cut off the audio feed immediately after Taylor revealed the location of a handgun. The ‘ officers searched fór and retrieved that gun despite Neary’s “sterii[]” instruction to the contrary.
On March 16, 2014, the State charged Taylor with murder. A few days later, Neary disclosed the eavesdropping. He sent a letter to one of Taylor’s attorneys, admitting that
[a]t the time Mr. Payne entered the • interview room to speak with Mr. Taylor - the recorder was disabled. However, the video/audio still ran to monitor, the events in the interview room which could be watched/listened to in another room.
I was present in the other room and overheard portions of Mr. Payne’s and ■ Mr, Taylor’s conversation up to the point where Mr. Payne asked Mr. Taylor where the weapon was and Mr. Taylor’s response. At' that point, the audio portion was disabled ás well.
... [T]hose present. were sternly told not to search for this weapon. However, Monday afternoon I was' informed, that despite the warnings, detectives went to the area and located the weap- ’■ on. The weapon was now in possession of the Michigan City Police Department. I explained I did not believe the weapon to be admissible under these circumstances. You indicated the issue of ad- . missibility would need to be addressed at a later date.
Finally,.... I ha[ve] self-reported, my- , self to the. Indiana Disciplinary Commission for my conduct_
Taylor promptly deposed Sergeant Westphal and four other, detectives involved in the investigation — Lead Detective A1 Bush, Corporal Sean Steele, Detective Justin Frever, and Detective Matthew Barr,. All five officers asked to consult with counsel ■ about their Fifth Amendment rights 'against self-incrimination as to all questions relating to the eavesdropping— thereby preventing Taylor from learning who was present in the War Room during the eavesdropping and what information was overheard.
Taylor sought to suppress all information and evidence, including the handgun, obtained after the eavesdropping began at 4:12 p.m., and all testimony of any witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment. He attached to that motion an affidavit filed by Attorney Payne, which stated that the eavesdropped conversation covered “confidential matters ... regarding the criminal defense of charges likely to be -filed.” In response to the motion to suppress, the State stipulated to - the suppression of the handgun but asserted that all other evidence and information obtained after 4:12 p.m. had an independent, untainted source.
' On what had been scheduled to be the first day of a two-week jury trial, the court held a day-long suppression hearing. The State called Lead Detective Bush and five other officers as witnesses, three of whom invoked the Fifth in response to all questions relating-to the eavesdropping. Then Taylor called three more officers, each of whom did likewise — once again preventing Taylor and the court from'learning the identity of the • eavesdroppers and what exactly they overheard. Three of the officers — Detectives Bush, Barr, and Frever — were among the five who had invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in depositions. .. Three others — Detectives David Cooney, Gregory Jesse, and Jason Costi-gan — had not previously testified.
. In Judge Kathleen Lang’s commendably thorough written order issued the next morning, the trial court partially granted the motion to suppress. The court found that even though the officers’ assertion of the Fifth Amendment “added [a] layer of ... difficulty,” the State had proved “an independent source of information ... in no way connected to the” eavesdropping for most- (though not all) of its planned exhibits. Some were - recovered before 4:12 p.m. when the eavesdropping began, and therefore were not challenged; and others, were part of a standard homicide investigation.
The trial court then turned its attention to the officers’ invocation of their Fifth Amendment privilege. Despite finding at least some of the post-eavesdropping evidence admissible, the court ordered blanket suppression of trial testimony from any witness “who has asserted the Fifth Amendment right of silence in a deposition or during testimony at the hearing on the
Motion to Suppress,” and stated that it would “stri[ke] in its entirety” the testimony of any witness who did so at trial. The court was concerned that absent “exceptional circumstances,” the Fifth Amendment privilege should not be invoked in the jury’s presence. It recognized that blanket suppression was “an extraordinary remedy,” but found that it was warranted in view of “the egregious actions by the police and the State,” and because the officers’ Fifth Amendment privilege would violate Taylor’s Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine them about what police overheard, who overheard it, whom they told about what they heard, and what actions they took as a result.
On the State’s motion, the trial court stayed the trial and certified that order for interlocutory appeal and ordered Taylor released because the seventy-day speedy trial deadline expired that day. On appeal, the State did not challenge the .requirement that it demonstrate an independent source for evidence and information obtained after 4:12 p.m. but argued that blanket suppression was “extreme.”
State v. Taylor,
35 N.E.3d 287, 295 (Ind.Ct.App.2015). In a split decision, the Court of Appeals agreed with the State, reversing the pretrial .blanket suppression of all testimony from officers who pleaded. the Fifth, declining to presume prejudice-from the State’s conduct.
Id.
at 302-03. Judge May dissented, concluding that blanket suppression of officer testimony was warranted, even before trial, based on the State’s failure to disprove prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt.
. Id.
at 305 (May, J., dissenting). We granted transfer, thereby vacating, the opinion of the Court of Appeals. , Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). Additional facts are set forth below.
Standard of Review
The State, in appealing from the partial grant of Taylor’s motion to suppress, must show the ruling was contrary to law.
State v. Washington,
898 N.E.2d 1200, 1203 (Ind.2008). We defer to -the specific findings of fact the trial court included in its order, neither, reweighing evidence nor reassessing witness credibility.
State v. Keck,
4 N.E.3d 1180, 1183 (Ind.2014). And we will affirm if the record discloses “substantial evidence of probative value” supporting the order.
Id.
(quoting
State v. Quirk,
842 N.E.2d 334, 340 (Ind. 2006)). But we review de novo the trial court’s conclusions of law, including determinations of whether Taylor’s constitutional rights have been violated.
See Speers v. State,
999 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ind.2013).
Discussion and Decision
■ The'right to counsel, enshrined in both the United States and Indiana Constitutions, is essential to liberty. The State is never more awesomely powerful, nor is the individual more vulnerable,.than in a criminal prosecution — and likewise,- the individual’s- ability,to .consult privately with a lawyer is never more precious. No matter how gruesome- and, senseless a crime, or how confident law enforcement may be about a suspect’s guilt, investigators are never justified in eavesdropping on a suspect’s communications with counsel. The right to counsel would be a charade unless it guarantees privacy in those consultations, because a suspect’s candor with counsel cannot come at the price of self-incrimination.
We would have, hoped that principle too obvious to-mention. Yet here, Chief Deputy Prosecutor Neary’s letter confirms that more than one law enforcement official flagrantly and unconscionably disregarded that safeguard — eavesdropping on. privileged attorney-client communications while turning a deaf ear to the ■ Constitutions they swore to uphold. Those officers have not only violated Taylor’s constitutional
rights to counsel but have also betrayed public trust.
Our condemnation of this shameful eavesdropping, however, must not cloud our analysis of the legal principles at stake. Before us is a motion to suppress, not a motion for sanctions — and what constitutes an effective
remedy
for Taylor is not necessarily what would constitute a proportionate
punishment
for the State. Our concern is to ensure the State’s egregious misconduct does not actually prejudice Taylor — that is, that no tainted evidence or testimony is admitted against him. Punishing the wrongdoers is a separate matter not before us today.
From that remedial perspective, prospectively excluding all eavesdropping officer testimony'goes too far. Even flagrant constitutional violations, though
presumptively
prejudicial, are not
necessarily
so— as illustrated by the trial 'Court’s unchallenged “independent source” findings as to many of the State’s exhibits. But while the independent-souree inquiry is relatively straightforward for tangible evidence, testimonial taint is more subtle and insidious. Having stolen Taylor’s strategic “playbook,”- these witnesses can potentially shade them testimony to undercut his- defense — yet, by pleading the Fifth, they impede his ability to cross-examine for such bias. Under these circumstances, then, we will require the State to disprove taint beyond a reasonable doubt.
The eavesdroppers’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment will make 'it exceedingly difficult for the State to carry that heavy burden. But even though we share the trial court’s desire to avoid the privilege being invoked in the jury’s presence, this record does not yet foreclose the possibility that these witnesses might give limited foundational testimony without significantly implicating their credibility — or their Fifth Amendment privilege — as to those matters. If the State can carry its burden within the strictures we announce today, Taylor’s confrontation and cross-examination rights will not be infringed. And if it cannot, pérhaps the same law-enforcement personnel whose bold misconduct sabotaged the prosecution will likewise be bold enough to personally deliver that news to Simone Bush’s family.
I. Law Enforcement Eavesdropping on Attorney-Client Communications Violates Federal and Indiana Constitutional Rights to Counsel.
Before discussing how to remedy the State’s constitutional misconduct, we pause briefly to discuss the nature of these violations.
A- 'Criminal suspect’s right to counsel is a cornerstone of a fair trial, guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United-States Constitution and Article 1, Section-13 of the Indiana State Constitution. These separate provisions extend similar protections — the right to counsel at any critical stage of a criminal proceeding “where counsel’s absence may derogate from the accused’s right to a fair trial.”
Caraway v. State,
891 N.E.2d 122, 126 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). However, . the Indiana right provides greater protection because it attaches earlier — upon arrest, rather than only when “formal proceedings have been initiated” as with the federal right.
See Taylor v. State,
689 N.E.2d 699, 703-04 (Ind.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under either Constitution, though, the right to counsel goes hand-in-hand- with attorney-client privilege, which recognizes the necessity of a defendant conferring
privately
with counsel.
Here, the law-enforcement eavesdropping unquestionably interfered with that ability to confer privately as guaran
teed by both Constitutions. -The Sixth Amendment. right to counsel attached when the State charged Taylor.
See U.S. v. Gouveia,
467 U.S. 180, 185, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984) (holding federal right to counsel attaches upon initiating “formal judicial proceedings”). And the Section 13 right to counsel attached even earlier, when the police arrested Taylor an hour before the eavesdropping commenced.
See Taylor,
689 N.E.2d at 703-04. And there appears to be no dispute that the eavesdropping violated those rights — indeed, the parties stipulated to suppression of the handgun and any other evidence “derived directly from the improper eavesdropping by officials of the state of a confidential attorney privileged conversation.” As a result, the trial court suppressed any exhibit for which it found that the State had failed to. establish an independent source. Since that aspect of the trial court’s ruling is unchallenged, we consider only what remedy is necessary as to the potentially tainted testimony. As set forth below, we presume that testimo-; ny to be tainted, unless. the State, can disprove taint beyond a reasonable doubt by establishing an independent source for the testimony without implicating the witnesses’ Fifth Amendment privilege.
II. Blanket Suppression of Testimony from State Witnesses Who Invoke the Fifth Amendment Is Premature.
Taylor asserts the blanket suppression imposed below is sustainable on three grounds: the eavesdropping itself violated his Indiana and federal constitutional rights to counsel; the officers’ pleading the Fifth about the eavesdropping violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses; and the prosecutor’s participation in the eavesdropping constituted prosecu-torial misconduct. We address each argument in turn.
A. The right to counsel does not support prospective, blanket suppression of potentially untainted testimony.
• ' ;■
The United States Supreme. Court has rejected the view that all right-to-counsel intrusions give rise, to a per se — that is, irrebuttable — presumption of prejudice.
See Weatherford v. Bursey,
429 U.S. 545, 550-51, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). In
Weatherford,
after being convicted of a crime and serving his sentence, Bursey brought a Section 1983 claim against an undercover police officer, alleging the officer violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by sitting in on pretrial meetings between Bursey and his lawyer.
Id.
at 547-48, 97 S.Ct. 837. The Court, however, held that presuming prejudice irrebuttably would “eut[ ] much too broadly,”
id,
at 557, 97 S.Ct. 837, as it was clear under those particular circumstances that the undercover officer’s intrusion created no “realistic possibility” of áetually prejudicing Bur-sey at trial,
see id.
at 551-52, 558, 97 S.Ct. 837. Although the undercover officer may have heard confidential information in the attorney-client meeting, the district court expressly found that he did not communicate that information to police or the prosecution, so that “no tainted evidence” was admitted against Bursey at trial.
Id.
at 54⅜ 558, '97 S.Ct. 837.
Similarly, we disavowed any irrebuttable presumption of prejudice in
Malinski v. State,
794 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind.2003). There, a defendant charged with murder claimed police violated his right to counsel when they seized “legal documents” from his jail cell.
Id.
at 1081 (emphasis omitted). But the legal documents were “not used at trial for any purpose” — and so, like
Weather-ford,
we refused to
presume
prejudice where no
actual
prejudice existed.
Id.
at 1082.
In view of -
Weatherford
and
Malinski,
we reiterate that even though eavesdropping on attorney-client communications is reprehensible, “there are rare circumstances where there is no possibility of [actual] prejudice to the defendant.”
State v. Fuentes,
179 Wash.2d 808, 318 P.3d 257, 262 (2014). We thereforé declínete uphold the blanket suppression of officer testimony because, as discussed below, we do not yet know whether such a “rare cireum--stanee[]” might manifest in this case. Just-as an irrebuttable presumption “cut[ ] much too broadly” in’
Weatherford
because no tainted evidence was admitted at trial, it would cut much too broadly here — -because the officers might give certain limit" ed, untainted testimony, such as laying foundation for the unsuppressed evidence. As the trial court found, .the untainted evidence includes, but is not limited to, fingerprints lifted from the crime, scene, Tr. 98; bullet fragments collected at the scene,. Tr. 187; blood stain swabs, Tr. 98r 100; spent shell casings, Tr. 9.9; hair fibers, Tr. 196; and publicly viewable content from Taylor’s Facebook page, Tr. 159-60. Indeed, some officers testified that the decision to collect certain items of evidence was “standard procedure” in any criminal investigation.
See, e.g,,
Tr. 187-88 (regarding decision to send shell casings to a firearms examiner for analysis); Tr. 190 (regarding decision to photograph victim’s body at scene); Tr. 202 (regarding decision to -send to crime lab a red stain collected at scene); Tr. 243-44 (regarding decision to photograph blood stains at scene). Barring the State from presenting even such limited testimony as evidentiary foundation, if it is. truly untainted, would overcompensate — going. beyond eliminating actual prejudice to Taylor.
Thus, this record does not yet support blanket suppression of officer testimony, on the basis of Taylor’s right to counsel. We now consider whether blanket suppression is sustainable on a different ground — Taylor’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right.
B. The confrontation right does not ■’ support prospective blanket sup- ' pression of the officers’ testimony, as the scope of their direct testimony at trial is not yet known.
' Taylor does not dispute that the officers are entitled'to invoke the Fifth Amendment. He asserts, rather, that their invoking the Fifth about the eavesdropping violates his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine them, and that this violation warrants completely barring them from testifying at trial, before their trial testimony is known.
The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause establishes that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right \.. to* be confronted with- the witnesses 'against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. The “main and essential -purpose” of this Clause is to guarantee criminal defendants the opportunity to conduct effective cross-examination at trial, testing the truthfulness of a witness’s direct examination -testimony. •
Delaware v. Fensterer,
474 U.S. 15, 19, 106 S.Ct. 292, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985) (quoting-
Davis v. Alaska,
415 U.S. 308, 315, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347(1974)). .
The Sixth Amendment confrontation right, however,' occasionally comes into .conflict with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This occurs where, as here, a State-witness invokes the Fifth in order to refuse to answer a question on cross-examination. Recognizing this tension, “courts must watch vigilantly to ensure that the, invocation [does] not ‘effectively ... emasculate the right of cross-examination itself.’ ”
U.S. v. Zapata,
871 F.2d 616, 623 (7th Cir.1989) (omission in original) (quoting
Fensterer,
474 U.S. at
19, 106 S.Ct. 292). Accordingly, it may become “‘necessary to strike the direct testimony1 of a nonresponding witness,”
id.
at 623 (quoting
Dunbar v. Harris,
612 F.2d 690, 692 (2d Cir.1979)) — or the witness’s entire testimony in “extreme” cases — to ensure that a witness’s Fifth Amendment right does not eviscerate a party’s right to cross-examine,
id.
at 624 (quoting
United States v. Lord,
711 F.2d 887, 892 (9th Cir.1983)).
The test for determining whether to strike direct testimony of a nonrespond-ing witness distills into two simple principles. If the witness’s refusal to answer prevents the defendant from
“directly assailing the truth
of the witness’ testimony,” then the court should strike the relevant portion of the testimony.
Id.
at 623 (emphasis added) (quoting
United States v. Humphrey,
696 F.2d 72, 76 (8th Cir.1982)). But if the refusal to. answer “relates only to
collateral matters,
such as credibility,” then the danger to defendant is considerably less, and no testimony need be stricken.
Id.
at 624 (emphasis added) (quoting
Humphrey,
696 F.2d at 75). This test, therefore, depends on the exact scope of direct examination testimony.
Here, though, the testimony at the suppression hearing focused on establishing an independent source for the various exhibits, shedding little light on what the scope of the officers’ testimony about those exhibits might be. But the extent to which they were able to establish an independent source for those exhibits without implicating their Fifth Amendment privilege lends credence to the State’s argument that- those witnesses are potentially untainted as .to limited matters such, as establishing foundation for the unsuppressed exhibits. If the State can make that showing as discussed, below, the eavesdropping, and its implications for the witnesses’ credibility, may constitute a “collateral” matter that does not eviscerate Taylor’s cross-examination right. Blanket suppression was therefore premature.
Ill, The State As the Wrongdoer Must ' Disprove Taint Beyond a Reasonable Doubt for All Presumptively Tainted Testimony.
Even though, again, we find the State’s abhorrent misconduct inimical to a free society, that outrage cannot cloud our legal analysis. Iri
Lafler-v. Cooper,
the United States Supreme Court directed that a Sixth Amendment'remedy “must ‘neutralize the taint’ of a constitutional violation, while at the same time hot grant a windfall to the defendant or needléssly squander the considerable resources the State prop- ■ erly invested in the criminal prosecution.” 666 U.S.-, —, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1388-89, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012) (citation omitted). On this not-fully-developed record, the trial court’s pretrial blanket suppression of officer testimony “overcorrects.” It amounts to finding an
irrebuttable
presumption of prejudice — which crosses the line from' rightly shielding Taylor from
actual
prejudice to granting-hiña a windfall against a potentially stili-viable murder prosecution. We conclude that a presumption of taint, rebuttable- only beyond a reasonable doubt, strikes a better balance.
The. eavesdropping here gives the State two unfair advantages. One is learning the whereabouts of
evidence
it would not otherwise discover, like the handgum The trial court here addressed that prejudice by applying the exclusionary rule, under which unconstitutionally seized evidence “is generally not admissible in a prosecution ... absent evidence of a recognized exception” to the rule.
Clark v. State,
994 N.E.2d 252, 260 (Ind.2013). One such exception is the “ultimate discovery' exception,” which applies when'the State can show “by á preponderance of the
evidence” that it had an independent source for discovering the evidence.
Nix v. Williams,
467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). Here the court applied that exception to the other various exhibits and neither party challenges the .court’s “independent source” findings.
The State’s second unfair advantage, however — learning
defense strategy
— is more insidious and therefore warrants a unique and more stringent remedy. Having stolen Taylor’s strategic “playbook,” tainted witnesses can preemptively shade their testimony to undermine that strategy. Shading testimony based, on ill-gotten strategic insight is more difficult to detect, but just as damaging to the fairness of an adversarial proceeding. Unfortunately, the extent to which the State actually prejudiced Taylor by capitalizing on both these advantages is, in the State’s words, “shrouded in a fog of uncertainty,” especially considering the officers’ refusal to reveal what was overheard and by whom.
But because the State placed Taylor in that “fog,” the State should likewise bear the burden of disproving prejudice. Unlike the exclusionary rule for tangible evidence, though, we believe the State must disprove this more-insidious testimonial taint beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Harden v. State,
576 N.E.2d 590, 593 (Ind.1991) (“Before a constitutional error can be held harmless, the Court must be sufficiently confident to declare the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”);
see also Fuentes,
318 P.3d at 262 (holding in virtually identical circumstances that “[t]he proper standard the trial court must apply is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with the burden on the State”). We are well aware that the officers’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment will make disproving taint difficult. And if that means a loss for the prosecution, so be it. The State cannot be permitted to put Taylor in this “trick bag,” and then demand that he bear the burden of getting out of it. Nor may the State demand that he tolerate lingering doubts about the extent to which he has been prejudiced by its own misdeeds.
And given that this stringent rebuttable presumption requires the State not just to prove a negative, but to do so beyond a reasonable doubt, the State must be given a full opportunity to meet that burden — an opportunity it has not yet had, since the suppression hearing focused on disproving taint only as to the State’s
exhibits,
not the officers’
testimony.'
Because
Weatherford
suggests that a “realistic possibility” of prejudice is all it takes, 429 U.S. at 558, 97 S.'Ct. 837 — a fairly low threshold — these witnesses are probably tainted for nearly any aspect of their testimony.
But “nearly” is not “all.” For example, again, the State suggests that the tainted officers could still testify to lay fdundation for the extensive evidence the trial court did not suppress.
As the State points out, such testimony might be sufficiently rou
tine that there would be no “realistic possibility” of the officers’ misconduct contaminating that portion of their testimony. Barring the State from presenting even that much before determining whether it can disprove taint would be a windfall to Taylor, disproportionate to the prejudice he has actually suffered from the intrusion into the attorney-client communications.
In other circumstances, it is quite possible that the taint of a “stolen playbook” would be so pervasive and insidious that no remedy short of barring the tainted witnesses entirely would be adequate. But we need not decide that larger question today — and we hope no future case of this type forces us to do so. Under these facts, the extent to which the officers were able to testify before invoking the Fifth persuades us that at least part of their testimony might be untainted. We leave it to the trial court on remand to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility on that point.
IV. Taylor’s Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim Need Not Yet Be Addressed.
We review a prosecutorial misconduct claim using a two-step analysis. First, there must be misconduct; and second, the misconduct must have placed the defendant in a position of grave peril.
Ryan v. State,
9 N.E.3d 663, 667 (Ind.2014). “The gravity of the peril is measured by
the probable persuasive effect
of the misconduct
on the jury’s decision
rather than the degree' of impropriety of the conduct.”
Id.
But here, in light of the State’s heavy burden at trial to disprove prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt, it is far from inevitable that the fruits of the prosecutor’s misconduct (ill-gotten evidence and defense strategy) will even reach the jury. Therefore, although we find the prosecutor’s malfeasance reprehensible, Taylor’s prosecutorial misconduct claim cannot carry the day — -not yet, at least.
Conclusion
We conclude that a presumption of prejudice, rebuttable only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, adequately protects Taylor from prejudice caused by the officers’ eavesdropping and their assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege about their actions. Thus, prospectively imposing blanket suppression of all testimony from witnesses ' pleading the Fifth Amendment is inappropriate.
We reverse the blanket suppression of testimony from witnesses who invoke the Fifth Amendment and remand with instructions to determine as to each presumptively tainted witness whether the State has proven
beyond a reasonable doubt
an independent source for that witness’s testimony without implicating the witness’s Fifth’ Amendment privilege — and therefore ' without derogating Taylor’s right of confrontation. The trial court may, in its discretion, either hold a new suppression hearing or proceed directly to a new trial at which the State may attempt to meet its burden through offers to prove outside the presence of the jury.. In all other respects; we affirm the trial court.
DICKSON, RUCKER, DAVID, and MASSA, JJ., concur.