35 N.E.3d 287
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Taylor was arrested for murder after eavesdropping by police on a confidential attorney-client conversation during a police interview.
- Detectives invoked Fifth Amendment and refused to answer deposition questions about the eavesdropping at suppression hearings.
- The trial court partially granted suppression, excluding evidence after 4:12 p.m. on March 14, 2014, and requiring independent bases for evidence thereafter.
- The court held that the Fifth Amendment invocations tainted the trial and barred any witness who invoked the Fifth from testifying at trial, unless narrowly limited.
- The State sought interlocutory review; this appeal concerns only the blanket exclusion of officers who asserted the Fifth Amendment, not the gun suppression or independent-source determinations.
- The majority remands for individualized analysis of each officer’s testimony to determine admissibility, focusing on Confrontation and related rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly barred all Fifth Amendment testimony by officers | Taylor argues blanket exclusion is necessary to vindicate attorney-client privilege | State contends limited testimony could be allowed to establish foundations for evidence | Remanded for individualized analysis; blanket exclusion reversed |
| Does Fifth Amendment invocation by officers violate Confrontation Clause if they testify | Taylor says cannot confront non-testifying officers; right to cross-examine is undermined | State asserts possible limited testimony may avoid complete deprivation of confrontation | Remanded to determine collateral vs direct matters; not decided |
| Whether Sixth Amendment right to counsel supports excluding officer testimony | Taylor argues prejudice from overheard defense strategy warrants exclusion | State contends no automatic prejudice; need show and no per se rule | No automatic prejudice found; remand for further prejudice analysis |
| Whether Fourth Amendment exclusionary principles justify excluding officer testimony | Taylor links to taint from eavesdropping and seeks exclusion of related evidence | Exclusionary rule not automatically applicable to officer testimony with independent sources | Argument fails; not solely grounded in Fourth Amendment; remand guidance |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct principles support excluding officer testimony | Taylor suggests misconduct taints the investigation and warrants exclusion | Misconduct standards require grave peril, admonishment, or mistrial not shown here | Premature to decide; remand for separate consideration of misconduct impact |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sugar, 84 N.J. 1, 417 A.2d 474 (1980) (tainted-evidence remedy; taint must be addressed in trial)
- State v. Sugar, 495 A.2d 90 (N.J. 1985) (tainted witnesses; contemporaneous taintary test)
- Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179 (1963) (nonprivileged information may be used; consider cross-examination impact)
- U.S. v. Zapata, 871 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1989) (confrontation rights and limits when witnesses invoke Fifth Amendment)
- United States v. Curry, 993 F.2d 43 (4th Cir. 1993) (preventing wholesale strike of testimony when privilege invoked; collateral matters)
- Clark v. State, 480 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. 1985) (right to confrontation; collateral vs direct testimony in cross-exam)
- Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 2003) (no automatic prejudice; remedy can be tailored to exclude tainted materials)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) ( Sixth Amendment remedies must be tailored to remedy taint without windfall)
- Ingram v. State, 760 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (presumption of prejudice discussed in police-eavesdropping context)
- U.S. v. Wilmore, 381 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2004) (unanswered questions may be collateral; need determine collateral scope)