Question about attorney/client privilege.

[Kablooie]

I know that if prosecutors hear privileged information it could seriously damage their case.
The actual info plus any information derived from it would not be admissible in court and I assume the defense would attack much of the evidence as being derived from the privileged info.

If Cohen blurts out privileged information to the press is it still considered privileged?
If Mueller's team hears it on the news, could it be used in the case against them?

If so this seems like a terrible loophole.
Cohen could actually be helping defend Trump by illegally releasing privileged info and be willing to accept the legal consequences for doing so.
If he were sent to prison Trump could also pardon him demonstrating that this whole division between them could just be a show to hoodwink the public and the prosecution.

[marble falls]

1. He can say what he wants pretty much, but a Judge will rule on what's privileged or not ...

and charge the Jury to ignore all information not in evidence in court. Whatever Cohen's got to say about Trump privileged or not Mueller already knows and lots of stuff Cohen will not know Mueller knows about until discovery.

Mueller nailed John Gotti. This is not his first rodeo.

[former9thward]

2. He also totally screwed up the anthrax killer case.

You are correct. It is not his first rodeo.

[marble falls]

4. So I used duckduckgoose to refresh my memory and all I found were RW websites ....

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bob+mueller+and+the+anthrax+killer+case&t=ffnt&ia=web


So I went to Wiki. I don't think they mishandled it so much as they were not sure who had launched this attack so soon after Sept 11. Read the article, its an interesting read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

This paragraph stuck out for me.

Bruce Edwards Ivins

On August 6, 2008, federal prosecutors declared Ivins to be the sole perpetrator of the crime when Jeffrey Taylor, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia laid out the case against Ivins to the public. Taylor stated "The genetically unique parent material of the anthrax spores ... was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins." But other experts disagreed, including biological warfare and anthrax expert, Meryl Nass, who stated: "Let me reiterate: No matter how good the microbial forensics may be, they can only, at best, link the anthrax to a particular strain and lab. They cannot link it to any individual." At least 10 scientists had regular access to the laboratory and its anthrax stock, and possibly quite a few more, counting visitors from other institutions, and workers at laboratories in Ohio and New Mexico that had received anthrax samples from the flask.[105] The FBI later claimed to have identified 419 people at Fort Detrick and other locations who had access to the lab where flask RMR-1029 was stored, or who had received samples from flask RMR-1029.[106]

[former9thward]

7. For some reason you do not mention Steven Hatfill.

Mueller centered on him as the anthrax killer for years. Hatfill won $4.6 million from the FBI because of this misconduct. Then Mueller shifted to Ivins as the "killer". This went on until Ivins killed himself and then when he could not speak for himself the FBI declared him to be the killer. The crime has never been solved after all these years.

[marylandblue]

3. Information about illegal activities is not privileged

Cohen can testify to conspiracy meetings he attended and it will be admissible. Also meetings involving non-clients are not privileged.

[PoliticAverse]

5. "If Cohen blurts out privileged information to the press is it still considered privileged?" - Yes,

because the privilege belongs to the client (note that communication "in furtherance of a crime" is not privileged).

[unblock]

6. my lay understanding is that this is actually a fairly complicated area of case law

it matters what jurisdiction you're in, whether it's a civil or criminal action, and whether the disclosure was intentional or accidental.

i believe in federal, criminal cases, accidental disclosure does not remove attorney-client privilege, provided you quickly take steps to contain the damage (such as telling the prosecutor "oops, you were not meant to be cc'd on that last email, please destroy it&quot .

however, intentional disclosure does remove attorney-client privilege, though only for that specific bit of disclosed information, and perhaps some things so closely related to that they can't be reasonably separated.


these disclosures can be made by the client, the attorney, or anyone on the attorney's staff.

in cohen's case a complicating factor is that cohen is apparently no longer donnie's lawyer, though he was at the time the information was gathered.

i suspect that any disclosure he makes once he is no longer donnie's attorney would not remove donnie's claim to privilege.


having said all this, if mueller becomes aware of privileged information, i believe he simply ignores it, and a judge would not permit it at trial; or if the jury did see it, would either declare a mistrial or instruct the jury to ignore it.

i do not believe becoming aware of privileged information otherwise "taints" a prosecution, unless there was prosecutorial misconduct involved in acquiring the privileged information.