Issue: What overarching issue was the court addressing or resolving (one questions not a paragraph just one sentence encapsulating)
Facts: What are the facts that the court described and cared about?
facts section should only include the actual facts of the case.
Rule of Law: what amendment? what italicized case was used? and any other procedures.
Application- how did the court apply the rule to the facts?
*application section should be how the Court applied the facts to the law
Conclusion: what result did the court reach and WHY?
PLEASE USE THE REFERENCE
State v. Quattlebaum
Appellant voluntarily went to the sheriff's office for questioning concerning his involvement in armed robbery and murder and agreed to take a polygraph examination. After the exam was administer, he was left alone in the polygraph room where he was joined by his attorney. Unbeknownst to either of them their conversation was audio and videotaped by detectives in the presence of a deputy solicitor. This fact was not revealed to appellant or his attorneys for two years. The deputy solicitor who participated in the eavesdropping was an active participant in appellant's trial and gave the closing argument in the guilt phase. The jury convicted appellant and recommended a sentence of death. This appeal followed.
Burnett, Justice:
Appellant argues his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated and the solicitor's office should have been disqualified as a result. We agree. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel protects the integrity of the adversarial system of criminal justice by ensuring that all persons accused of crimes have access to effective assistance of coun- sel for their defense. The right is grounded in "the presumed inability of a defendant to make in- formed choices about the preparation and conduct of his defense." Although the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is distinguishable from the attor- ney-client privilege, the two concepts overlap in many ways. The right to counsel would be mean- ingless without the protection of free and open communication between client and counsel. The United States Supreme Court has noted that "con- ferences between counsel and accused .. . some- times partake of the inviolable character of the confessional." This is, fortunately, a case of first impression in South Carolina. Never before have we addressed a case involving deliberate prosecutorial intrusion into a privileged conversation between a criminal defendant and his attorney. Federal jurisprudence in this area is decidedly ambiguous, and we have found no precedent dealing with a prosecutor de- liberately eavesdropping on an accused and his attorney. In the 1950s and 1960s, when first faced with cases involving government eavesdropping on at- torney-client conversations, federal courts refused to examine either the government's motives or the degree of prejudice to the defendant. Over time, the rule that began to emerge would have required either a showing of deliberate prosecutorial mis- conduct or prejudice, but not both.The integrity of the entire judicial system is called into question by conduct such as that en- gaged in by the deputy solicitor and investigating officers in this case. Prosecutors are ministers of justice and not merely advocates. A prosecutor has special responsibilities to do justice and is held to the highest standards of professional ethics. The participation at trial of a prosecutor who has cavesdropped on the accused and his attorney tarnishes us all. We will not tolerate deliberateThis is, fortunately, a case of first impression in South Carolina. Never before have we addressed a case involving deliberate prosecutorial intrusion into a privileged conversation between a criminal defendant and his attorney. Federal jurisprudence in this area is decidedly ambiguous, and we have found no precedent dealing with a prosecutor de- liberately eavesdropping on an accused and his attorney. In the 1950s and 1960s, when first faced with cases involving government eavesdropping on at- torney-client conversations, federal courts refused to examine either the government's motives or the degree of prejudice to the defendant. Over time, the rule that began to emerge would have required either a showing of deliberate prosecutorial mis- conduct or prejudice, but not both. In 1977, the United States Supreme Court appeared to alter this standard in Weatherford v. Bursey. Weatherford involved an informant/code- fendant who attended meetings between Bursey and his attorney. The Supreme Court found no Sixth Amendment violation where there was no tainted evidence, no communication of defense strategy to the prosecution, and no purposeful in- trusion by the government. The Court held that establishing a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires a showing of "at least a realistic possibility" of prejudice.Because the government interceptions in Weatherford were "unintended and undisclosed," the Court did not address whether the rule would be different in a case involving deliberate miscon- duct by the government. Nor did the Court decide who bears the burden of proving prejudice. .. . Weatherford is inapplicable to the case sub judice, where a member of the prosecution team intentionally cavesdropped on a confidential de- fense conversation. We conclude, consistent with existing federal precedent, that a defendant must show either deliberate prosecutorial misconduct or prejudice to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment, but not both. Deliberate prosecutor rial misconduct raises an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice. The content of the protected commu- nication is not relevant. The focus must be on the misconduct. In cases involving unintentional in- trusions into the attorney-client relationship, the defendant must make a prima facie showing of prejudice to shift the burden to the prosecution to prove the defendant was not prejudiced Because a deputy solicitor of the Eleventh Circuit Solicitor's Office cavesdropped on a privi- leged conversation between appellant and his attorney, we reverse appellant's conviction and dis- qualify the Eleventh Circuit Solicitor's office from prosecuting appellant at his new trial. Although we have disqualified the Eleventh Circuit Solicitor's Office from prosecuting appel- lant, we address appellant's second assertion because of its importance to judges, attorneys, criminal defendants, and indeed all citizens of this state. Every South Carolinian has a vital interest in the fair administration of justice. This Court bears the ultimate responsibility for maintaining judicial integrity and high standards of professional con- duct among the members of the bar, and for pro- tecting and defending the constitutional rights of the accused
