State v. Yatman, s. 74--1097
| Decision Date | 09 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | 74--1098,Nos. 74--1097,s. 74--1097 |
| Citation | 320 So.2d 401 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Gungor Mehmet YATMAN, a/k/a Gungor Mehmet Yatmanaka, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Philip S. Shailer, State's Atty., and Jon H. Gutmacher, Asst. State's Atty., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Howard M. Zeidwig, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
This case involves (1) what we perceive to be a serious ethical question in the prosecution of criminal cases and (2) the propriety of the court's dismissal of an information appellant had filed against appellee charging him with grand larceny of three hundred pairs of shoes from Florida WMC, Inc., on February 3, 1974.
One Kozakoff was charged in another case with receiving stolen property belonging to Florida WMC, Inc., on February 3, 1974. Counsel for Kozakoff filed a witness list naming appellee as a witness in the Kozakoff case. Thereupon the assistant state attorney handling the Knozakoff case obtained the issuance of a witness subpoena commanding appellee to appear in his office two days later. The appellant gave no notice of any kind to the lawyer who represented appellee in the grand larceny case appellant had filed against him. However, about an hour before appellee was to appear at the state attorney's office, appellee notified his lawyer of the subpoena. The lawyer advised appellee that he was unable to attend the deposition with him because of other commitments, but he stated: Appellee appeared at the appointed time, and his deposition was taken. That deposition shows that the assistant state attorney advised appellee of his rights and asked him if he would sign a waiver form which was read into the record. Appellee agreed and did sign the waiver form.
When the case came on for trial counsel for appellee orally moved the court to dismiss the information on the grounds that the appellant by taking appellee's deposition without his counsel being present had effectively granted appellee immunity. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that appellee did not intelligently waive immunity, and dismissed the grand larceny information. Yet the only evidence before the trial court was the deposition in question and assertions made by appellee's lawyer in arguing the oral motion to dismiss.
We agree with the appellant that the record made before the trial judge was inadequate to support a finding that appellee did not waive immunity. On remand appellee should be afforded an opportunity to file a proper motion in accordance with Rule 3.190(a), RCrP, and the court should then hold a hearing to determine the issues created by said motion. If the court finds the waiver was involuntary, then dismissal of the information for grand larceny and another information for harboring a felon would be proper. On the other hand if the waiver was voluntary, a motion to dismiss on that ground should be denied.
This brings us to the ethical considerations involved in a case when the prosecution communicates with an individual charged with an offense but does so without notifying that individual's attorney. We concede that the case in which the deposition was taken was not the criminal case in which the appellee was the defendant. However, the charge against Kozakoff and the charge against appellee either arose out of the same criminal episode or else are so closely connected as to make testimony which is relevant in one case very likely relevant in the other. We concede also that counsel for appellee did receive actual knowledge of the subpoena within the hour before his client was mandated to appear. But the ethical violation had occurred, or at least had been set in motion, by that point.
There appears to be some doubt among some prosecutors that DR7--104 Code of Professional Responsibility, 32 F.S.A., applies to their activities. Perhaps this doubt exists because prosecutors do not have an individual client to represent. Be that as it may, there is probably no provisions of the Canons of Ethics more sacred between competing lawyers than the prohibition against communicating with another lawyer's client on the subject of the representation.
Such knowing communication constitutes the grossest sort of unethical conduct.
Disciplinary Rule 7--104 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies equally to lawyers involved in the prosecution of criminal cases as in civil cases. United States v. Thomas, 474 F.2d 110 (10th Cir. 1973); United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ruth
...Function § 4.1(b) (1971); National District Attorneys Association, National Prosecution Standards § 16.2(B) (1977); State v. Yatman, 320 So.2d 401 (Fla.App.1975); People v. Green, 405 Mich. 273, 274 N.W.2d 448 (1979); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)......
-
People v. Green
...obtained in violation of old Canon 9 but chose not to.But see Reinke v. United States, 405 F.2d 228 (CA 9, 1968); State v. Yatman, 320 So.2d 401 (Fla.App.1975); State v. McConnell, 529 S.W.2d 185 (Mo.App.1975). In State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 560 P.2d 41 (1976), Cert. den. 433 U.S. 915......
-
United States v. Jamil
...870, 89 S.Ct. 159, 21 L.Ed.2d 139 (1968); People v. Green, 405 Mich. 273, 274 N.W.2d 448, 452 (1979) (dissent); State v. Yatman, 320 So.2d 401, 403 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975) (knowing communication constitutes "grossest form of unethical conduct" by prosecuting attorney); People v. Skinner, 52 ......
-
Moran v. Burbine, 84-1485
...of DR7-104(A)(1), cert. denied sub nom. Edler v. United States, 469 U.S. 1161, 105 S.Ct. 915, 83 L.Ed.2d 928 (1985); State v. Yatman, 320 So.2d 401, 403 (Fla.App.1975) ("Disciplinary Rule 7-104 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies equally to lawyers involved in the prosecution......
-
Formal Opinion 69: Propriety of Communicating With Employee or Former Employee of an Adverse Party Organizational-revised Opinion Adopted June 19, 2010
...of that representation, he or she is best advised to check with that lawyer before commencing the communication. See State v. Yatman, 320 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (where a criminal defendant was represented by counsel in an existing criminal case, the prosecutor's attempt to interview ......
-
Cba Revised Ethics Opinion No. 69: Communicating With the Employee or Former Employee of an Adverse Party Organization
...of that representation, he or she is best advised to check with that lawyer before commencing the communication. See, State v. Yatman, 320 So.2d 401 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1975), where a criminal defendant was represented by counsel in an existing criminal case and the prosecutor's attempt to in......
-
Ethics Committee Opinions
...of that representation, he or she is best advised to check with that lawyer before commencing the communication. See, State v. Yatman, 320 So.2d 401 (Fla. Dist. Ct.App. 1975), where a criminal defendant was represented by counsel in an existing criminal case and the prosecutor's attempt to ......