|
The People of the State of Illinois v. Pamela J. Knuckles No.
73616 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS On
Appeal from the Appellate Court, Second Judicial District, Case
No. 2-90-0893 Honorable John J. Bowman, Judge Presiding.
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, PAMELA KNUCKLES ELIZABETH M. STREIT PAUL L. STRAUSS MALCOLM C. RICH Attorneys for Chicago Council of Lawyers, 220 South State Street, Suite 800, Chicago, IL. 60604, 312-427-0710
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1 I. ENCROACHMENT UPON FEDERAL OR STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATELY CONSIDERED 2 People v. Knippenberg, 66 Ill. 2d 276, 284 (1977) 2 II. A PUBLIC INTEREST EXCEPTION HAS THE CAPACITY TO SWALLOW THE RULE AND SHOULD BE CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATELY CONSIDERED 3 Conclusion 3 INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE The Chicago Council of Lawyers ("Council") is a public interest bar association composed of approximately 1,300 lawyers in private practice, government service and law schools. The Council has long been concerned with the fair administration of justice and the right of Illinois citizens to effective assistance of counsel. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Council submits this amicus brief because it is concerned about the potential implications of the Court's creation of a public interest exception to the deeply-rooted attorney-client privilege. The Council urges the Court to grant the defendant's petition for rehearing so that the Court will have an opportunity to reconsider the important issues raised by its ruling. In its opinion, the Court held that the attorney-client privilege extends to communications between a non-testifying, defense-retained psychiatrist and a defendant who raises an insanity defense but found for the first time a public interest exception where "the fundamental truth-seeking function of the trial would be obstructed" if the communications were not disclosed. Opinion at 11-12. Two important, and competing, policies of our justice system clash here. Our system of justice fosters the broad discovery of relevant evidence. But it also encourages full and frank communications between litigants and their lawyers. This free flow of information is a cornerstone of our adversarial system. And, as the Court recognized here, effective assistance of counsel often requires that unhampered communication be extended to those employed by defense counsel to aid in the defense. It is because these competing interests are both so important to our justice system, and to the Illinois citizens it serves, that rehearing is urged. A grant of rehearing will allow the parties, and other friends of the Court, to more fully brief the issues raised by a public interest exception to the attorney-client privilege. The Council touches briefly on two issues it has identified below.
I. ENCROACHMENT UPON FEDERAL OR STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATELY CONSIDERED.
The Court itself acknowledged that denial of the privilege may erode Federal or State constitutional rights -- a criminal defendant's constitutional assurance of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and to a fair trial under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment -- a denial that the Court deemed "intolerable" in People v. Knippenberg, 66 Ill.2d 276, 284 (1977). Opinion at 7. Any encroachment upon these rights should be carefully and deliberately considered.
II. A PUBLIC INTEREST EXCEPTION HAS THE CAPACITY TO SWALLOW THE RULE AND SHOULD BE CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATELY CONSIDERED. As the dissent so aptly emphasized, this exception has the capacity to swallow the rule. Proper application of the attorney-client privilege will always obstruct the search for the truth. Opinion at 13-14. When is the "public interest" great enough to override the equally compelling interest in free and full communication between Illinois citizens and their counsel? Furthermore, how does the Court's decision apply in other contexts? Is a public interest exception applicable to communications between a litigant and her attorney, as well as to communications with the attorney's agent? Does the exception apply in civil cases? In a civil case the compelling constitutional concerns the Court recognized but overrode here are not as weighty. Does this mean the privilege can more easily be ignored in a civil case? Or is the "public interest" in truth-seeking in a civil case also less important and therefore not likely to compel disclosure? The Court's opinion does not answer these questions. Conclusion Because the Court's decision deals with the equally important interests embodied in the attorney-client privilege and our system's policy of allowing liberal discovery of evidence, and because the Court's "public interest" exception propels Illinois litigants down an uncharted course, the Court should grant the defendant's petition for rehearing. Respectfully submitted;
Amicus Curiae, THE CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS BY: One of its attorneys DATE: March 29, 1994 Elizabeth M. Streit Paul L. Strauss Chicago Council of Lawyers President 220 South State StreetSuite 800Chicago, Illinois 60604 Malcolm C. Rich, Executive Director 312-427-0710 No. 73616 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAMELA J. KNUCKLES, Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal from the Appellate Court, Second Judicial District, Case No. 2-90-0893 There Heard on Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois. Honorable John J. Bowman, Judge Presiding.
MOTION OF PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S PETITION FOR REHEARING The Chicago Council of Lawyers ("Council"), through their attorneys, moves this Court, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 345(a), for leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Plaintiff-Appellant's Petition for Rehearing. The Council has deposited with the Supreme Court Clerk 20 copies of such brief. In support thereof, the Council states as follows: 1. The Council is a public interest bar association composed of approximately 1,300 lawyers dedicated to making government and the legal system more responsive to the needs of the public. 2. The Council has long been involved in addressing issues concerning the professional responsibility and ethics of the legal profession. This Court will benefit in its determination from having the legal and policy views of a non-partisan public interest bar association. 3. No delays will be incurred by the parties in the disposition of this litigation if the Council is permitted to file its amicus curiae brief. WHEREFORE, the CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS prays that this Court grants leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Defendant-Appellee's Petition for Rehearing. Respectfully submitted, Amicus Curiae, CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS, BY: One of its attorneys Date: March 29, 1994 Malcolm C. Rich, Executive Director, Chicago Council of Lawyers, 220 South State Street, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois 60604 312-427-0710 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Malcolm C. Rich, an attorney, certify that on March 29, 1994, I served by U.S. mail delivery the foregoing Notice of Motion; Motion of Proposed Amicus Curiae Chicago Council of Lawyers; three copies of the Brief for Amicus Curiae Chicago Council of Lawyers; and a copy of the Proposed Order upon each attorney listed on the attached service list. On March 30, 1994, pursuant to a request by the Clerk's Office of the Supreme Court of Illinois, I sent by U.S. mail delivery the foregoing Motion of Proposed Amicus Curiae Chicago Council of Lawyers and a Proposed Order to Justice John L. Nickels.
Malcolm C. Rich Service List: Thomas P. Sullivan, Norbert B. Knapke, II, Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza Suite 4400, Chicago, IL. 60611 Kathleen M. Banar, MacArthur Justice Center, University of Chicago Law School, 1111 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL. 60637 George Patrick LynchGeorge Patrick Lynch, Ltd.100 West Monroe StreetChicago, IL. 60603 Roland W. BurrisAttorney GeneralState of Illinois Terence M. MadsenAssistant Attorney GeneralCriminal Appeals Division100 West Randolph, 12th FloorChicago, IL. 60601 James E. Ryan State's Attorney for DuPage County Barbara A. PreinerAssistant State's AttorneySupervisor of Appeals505 N. County Farm RoadWheaton, IL. 60187
|