*1 below, courts each of judgments these denying are defendants into a intervention entry pretrial program, affirmed. hereby Hughes For Justice and Justices affirmance —Chief
Mountain, Sullivan, Clifford, Pashman, Schreiber Handler —7.
For reversal —Hone. KOZLOV, ESQUIRE, IN THE MATTER OF HERSCHEL CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT. Argued February November 1978 Decided 1979. *2 for appellant the cause Mr. H. Kenney argued Joseph Bead, Archer, Mr. Charles Gremer attorneys; (Messrs. Jr., L. Harp, on brief). Brennan, General, Attorney argued
Mr. Peter H. Deputy Attorney Gen- Degnan, John the cause for respondent (Mr. *3 Jersey, attorney). eral New of the was delivered opinion by The court judgment The factual the background Hughes, C. J. stated in which taken is well generally from appeal this Kozlov, In the Division. re opinion Appellate unnecessary J. Div. It Super. 1978). 316 (App. on that it reached conclusions legal us to consider all must since we are that its base, judgment convinced factual and supervening ground reversed an entirely separate on — not therein, and perhaps dealt one prominently or parties its by to attention sufficiently recommended Be that as in the case. made factual record by indeed unusual is pro- question somewhat may, following by this jected appeal. Catlett, Borough
One Eloard C. chief of the police on by jury Lawnside in Camden was convicted 'County, offense, the an indictment him with a criminal charging this nature of which is not relevant to the issue before Court. 11, had Yacovelli, member of one Juror Number jury, A that voir dire the court by by denied silence on examination his B. 1:8-3, under that he knew the trial defendant or was him in Indeed he forswore prejudiced any way. by against which matter existed affect very might silence and As a juror. his service as an disinterested impartial natural no to interposed challenge result trial defendant cause, either for B. juror, l:8-3(b), peremptorily, B. in 1:8-3 about Yacovelli sat and it came (d), thus on defendant. judgment conviction Catlett
Some time after highly publicized which to the conviction for eventually events occurred led at law, of an by Catlett trial contempt, judge, as a Kozlov, “repu described below appellant-respondent * * table bar faith member of the acting good Kozlov, Kozlov had there at 320. Super, tofore uninvolved with the Catlett trial any way itself, “inno well be characterized as classic might conviction, his which led to bystander.” events cent described in appropriately) proceedings preliminarily (and camera, Memorial Cty. Hosp., heard Scott v. Salem Div. came about Super. (App. 1971), A business client of Attor way. long-standing family an Kozlov, while him on unconnected ney legal consulting his, client’s, matter, solicited professional advice had him acci come to duty divulge knowledge and which affected the of the Catlett con dentally validity of jus viction and thus of the administration the integrity Kozlov, true, if would have tice. The evidence supplied to conviction of jury despoil so contaminated the Catlett as fair trial an his Amendment right impartial Sixth him, most conceivable circum jury to entitle under *4 stances, to new trial.
The information was related to Kozlov his client on by condition that whatever it, decided to do with lawyer client’s name its source would- never be revealed. Com- with his as an patible, surely, obligation court, officer of the Kozlov disclosed the information to one at- Poplar, defense Catlett, torney for emphasizing stipulated anonymity his client. While he might directly better informed the have “A reveal lawyer shall 7-108(E) provides:
trial court (DR * * * a juror conduct improper to the court promptly * * * we has knowledge”), regard lawyer of which the Kozlov circumstances. in the inconsequential misdirection the in- would transmit to assume that Poplar was entitled challenge court in support formation Indeed, had Kozlov alterna- verdict. the Catlett validity of would inform official prosecutor, -to tively decided with the the information bound to share have been equally — and elicit its inquiry court and the same purpose for conviction. of the basic validity as to the impartial judgment 501-02 (1977). Vinegra, See State information involved was follows: The after shortly conviction, Yacovelli heard to boast that juror Catlett’s was he had “even with defendant for the gotten [Catlett] arrest a member of his prosecution [Yacovelli’s] Kozlov, 156 N. J. As family.” Super, 318. indicated, con- have this activated Kozlov’s we science and action. his disclosure induced Understandably, this movement by Poplar:
Poplar investigated per- Kozlov’s information that a discovered bearing juror question residing son the same surname as disorderly per- at his had in fact address been the defendant in a proceeding Borough Municipal son’s in the of Lawnside He Court. thereupon application pursuant jndge made to B. 1:16-1 to the who presided seeking juror had at Catlett’s trial to have the interviewed. application supported by Poplar’s was affidavit which con- hearsay, pertinent tained Kozlov’s recitation facts of the Municipal proceeding Lawnside Court and the recollection that at prospective jurors juror question, the vovr dwe of as did all ultimately sworn, knowing having any the others denied Catlett or against (footnote omitted)]. [Id. reason bias him. at 319
We observe that could Poplar have no probably gone further in rid-l,1 his under the stricture of R. 1 investigation provides:
1B. 1:16-1 Except by granted upon good shown, of court leave cause no party through any investigator or shall himself or *5 LaFera, State v. 42 N. J. 105-07 so that under (1964), he court initiate appropriately appealed that rule investigation including, further inter- supervise certainly, the juror. rogation Division “trial was recalled that the Appellate judge with
not satisfied a sufficiency affidavit as Poplar’s basis for initiating juror-interrogation process since affidavit relied on hearsay information and exclusively record, municipal court which its showed no on face N. Super. J. direct link between the juror and Catlett.” at 319 (footnote As the more certain record stands omitted). before now, us link” however, postulate the “no direct decision is weakened. Eor leave significantly Court the municipal Teeord has amplified by been copies court Yacovelli, arrest Luciana evidences report one a much This stronger link Catlett. juror between evidence not, been, was it should have before placed fully the trial its on judge, suggested was although existence record. That record no both trial faulty judge doubt misled and Appellate Division.
It clear is now that the were, officers arresting fact, Pa- trolman James Morris and Sergeant Catlett, Eloard C. Jr. (defendant Catlett’s son). They acted on of viola- charge of S. A. 2A :170-98 tion A.B. (shoplifting) and 2A:170-29 (use of offensive language, etc.). Luciana Yaco- velli was convicted in the on court municipal the first charge mentioned. link This seems us to circumstantially so persuasive it, had it made entirely clear, together with hearsay of juror evidence Yaeovelli’s boast of retalia- tion Catlett against supposed wrong, should have the trial energized with proceed judge an immediate investigation, with his commencing interrogation Luciana Yacovelli and the juror involved, to determine their rela- person acting interview, other question for him any examine or
grand petit juror respect to the verdict or deliberations jury action. *6 and attributed prejudice rancor supposed tionship v. Salem Scott of her conviction. juror to the because Cf. Super, N. J. at 37 supra, light Memorial 116 Hasp., (“In Cty. * * * are con alluded we which have evidence to we have allowed further court should the trial vinced irregularit[y]).” respect alleged inquiry hearings, of camera ensued a there sequence Instead rather the attorney but implicated juror not the interrogate misconduct. These hearings had alleged who reported attorney-client at the- length scope considerable explored nuances and the of distinction between forced privilege, and the itself of a communication disclosure 391, Richardson, In 31 N. J. 397 re of the client. identity Toscano, 418, N. 424 In re v. 13 J. (1953); State (1960); Kozlov, 321-24. The trial court 156 N. J. supra, Super, decided, attorney- Division that the agreed, and the Appellate far as Kozlov did not extend permit so client client, his and that he was contempt the name of withhold while, The of Catlett from appeal for doing. court so the outcome his conviction been held pending has case. pxesent mindful,
We are the thrust respectful, of 1:16-1 would B. inhibit the by disappointed harassment jurors, or or have attorneys parties grand petit, who acted in fulfillment of the highest duty short of public (perhaps military service or exercise of franchise) expected of a justice citizen. The administration of requires harassment, their freedom of action be shielded from such their State v. especially affecting decision-making process. Athorn, LaFera, 46 N. 247, J. 251-52 v. (1966); State Schermerhorn, v. 25 N. J. supra; 1, Misc. 31 O’Regan (Sup. 1946). Lord Coke observed of 12 Coke Ct. As Judges, Rep. 1305, 77 23, 25, Eng. Rep. 1307 C. because (S. 1608), jurors, judicial function, only are involved make they need account to King (such by accountability [the State] their for criminal on and to God for corruption part) Quinlan, N. 10, ; 70 J. 48 (1976) their decision. See Winne, 1952), Liv. (Law Super. v. 21 N. State for the J. 152 This on grounds, (1953). rev’d other action integrity independence of their judicial sake depends. plainly so administration which the upon much B. so 1:16—1 envisaged by cause” “good or thought or methods the motives defect in impropriety v. verdict, their State reach jurors which the processes Athorn, concerns some 251-52, rather but J. at the delibera into injected aliunde —some occurrence event inheres. State tion in which the capacity prejudice Kociolek, (1955). voir juror
Where a on dire fails to disclose potentially case, prejudicial material, as that involved *7 This party fair may regarded denied trial. having is not because of necessarily prejudice actual or any provable to his case of to rather because attributable such but juror, loss, his disclosure, reason of by op of that failure of portunity have juror by challenge, excused the appropriate thus with he be maximum assuring certainty possible Deatore, 70 judged an State v. fairly by impartial jury. 100, 105-06 (1976).
Deatore emphasizes of a initiative trial expected judge to explore and make certain the of elements es presence sential to the proper administration of justice, including very Id.; importantly the impartial basic ideal. State jury to that v. Jackson, Bernstein, 43 N. J. 148, v. Wright 157 (1964); 23 N. J. 284, 294-95 (1957).
The responsibility of a trial judge, as guardian and exemplar of the pure administration of justice, would re quire him, while spurning any officious interference independence and of integrity the mental processes of a jury Athorn, v. (State supra, 46 N. J. at 252), seek out and expose outside factors upon impinging the jury’s freedom of action and thus its impartiality essential integrity. Any matter which would contaminate the latter should invite the aggressive attention and concern of the he, trial judge
340 and steward of custodian others, immediate is the
above all of the particular and exigencies the circumstances case. doubt, in the context most serious
We have the inflexible thesis that us, validity ease of the before the substance from client, distinguished identity ancient confidence, is outside the his professional not deal and client.2 We are deemed exist between fee a retainer (per identity payor here with the ing de for the professional theoretically “client”) haps only v. crimes, as in State fense of of gambling others accused v. Warden Toscano, Vogelstein ex rel. People Ct. Jail, S. (Sup. N. Y. 362 714, 270 150 Misc. County N. Y. 1059 (App. S. Div. 271 1934), App. aff'd ser a corrupt public or another accused Div. 1934); Richardson, in a of a prostitute supra; In ret vant, as in F. 2d v. ease, Pape, United States Mann Act violation and necessity interest public higher 1944). Cir. (2d —here on not exist do courts in cases motivating choose, force of must lawyer Eor if decent the contrary. circumspection aby life law, his protect to the heart going information him to suppress cause would years many ago was well described of this 2The basis Hatton, (1833), Pick.) 416, Robinson, (14 where Mass. said: Shaw Chief Justice * * * principle this; *8 This we take to' and be that so numerous by complex rights are laws which the the and duties of citizens important governed, they permitted so are is it that should be superior learning themselves the and to avail skill of those by expounders, law who are sanctioned the as its ministers and ascertaining rights country, maintaining in their in both the and safely courts, publishing facts, in without them most those which keep they right secret, a to- but which have must be disclosed to advocate, legal successfully per- to him adviser enable to office, of his form the duties the law has considered it the encourage by policy confidence, to and sanction this re- wisest quiring attorney on such facts the mouth of the shall be forever sealed.
241 of the administration of justice, public the interest in the of justice would be probity So betrayed. here, if the law would force Kozlov to forget about the information he heard from his rather on, client than it pass not only would the administration of justice be frustrated but Kozlov himself would violation his ethical under DR duty 7-108 (E). from this
Proceeding paradox, we classify Kozlov’s di lemma of professional conscience3 as within being the at torney-client if privilege only because of the “balancing test” between public the interest in the search for truth and the ETote, itself. See “The Attorney-Client Privi lege: Rules, Eixed Entitle Balancing, Constitutional ment,” 91 Haro. L. Rev. 464 for this As stated (1977). Richardson, Court In re by Justice Jacobs in N. 31 J. supra, * *” * 401, at matter is truly one balance in “[t]he deed was Division here recognized by Appellate although did think, do, it as we in favor of it ran clearly asserted Kozlov. We identify would the par ticular In re here with ease of 8 Kaplan, circumstances N. Y. 214, N. Y. S. N. E. 836, 2d 2d 168 660 (1960), 2d Chief Court of Ap which Desmond wrote for the Judge : peals lawyer’s difficulty harmonizing ethical 3There occasional duty responsibility as an officer of the court. to his client and his Meyers, 584, 449, 2d Ct. 42 L. Ed. Maness 419 U. 95 S. v. S. Cf. Callan, important ; (1975). (1975) Elements N. J. 401 “integrity this dilemma of the rule the resolution of include to clients, Callan, supra, rights 407, law,” J. at the constitutional obligation lawyer,
Maness, system converge produce “occasions when our to factors sometimes Gallon, supra, give to client.” the nod seems difficulty Indeed, been described as “trilemma” has 411. — lawyer required is, “that conscientious keep confidence, everything, and to reveal it know Adversary System Lawyers’ Freedman, in an Ethics M. court.” Cardwell, Lowery (9th 2d 575 F. 730-32 Cir. (1975). Cf. 1978). *9 ?A2 * * * confidentially retained question an whether
The law is investigating public pass a to information a to certain client informa- willing jail disclose body to he is is to land in because Dra- Imposition so a sanction identity. client’s but not his tion lawyer-client to as rules ancient conian and so destructive be held can security. it not think do for close We calls valid. * * * com Usually, but name the client’s not the client’s so, sacred, lawyer ordi and is held to be his munication to preserve con narily, name to need to conceal there is no already di had communication here the client’s But fidence. name de vulged the client’s and it was to the Commissioner App. States, (see protection v. United Elliott and needed served C„ 702), Lee, F. fox fear 456; C. States v. C. United D. in reprisals, to doubt no reason there was etc. Since unnecessary investigate appellant, to it was a formant was client appellant relationship. to communication the client’s Since expose wrongdoing public purpose in the aid of a made was not, wrongdoing, case, Vogelstein the seal of conceal as in long name, secrecy his information so cover the client’s should contrary holding public made available was authorities. * * * policy right and em end, ancient contravenes the no serves taking lawyer penalizes a course consistent barrasses responsibilities. 2d 217- [8 N. Y. at and civil his 838-839, 661]. E. 2d at N. Y. S. 2d say exceedingly this is to that the while privilege, None sacrosanct. The Rules themselves Disciplinary important, such as a recognize exceptions confidential communication crime, DR But the commission of leading 101(C),(3). 4— here deal not with a client’s confidence given prepara we prevention, tion for the commission of crime but rather its would, true, if the sense of information which providing criminal demonstrate a to a ob juror’s equivalent contempt Jeck, N. J. Super. struction of itself. See In re 514-, Div. 519 (App. 1953).
Therefore
if,
determine,
we here
Kozlov was
entitled
case,
the circumstances of this
to the professional
shield
attorney-client
path
to our
privilege,
decision is made
clear.
straight
Privilege
born
law,
common
attorney-client
here
involved, is
an idle
and anachronistic
vestige
ancient past. On the con-
*10
it
trary,
well-defined
has
relationship, recognized and de
over the centuries,
fined
administration
the
of justice, to
the basic needs of
condition,
the human
to the essential rights
of man and thus to the public interest. As such
clearly
deserves the continued
protection
the courts. Considering
the respect owed by courts to the
will,
legislative
the
ap
same
—
plies to
established
privilege
by statute
such as the so-
called “shield” laws
those who
protecting
gather
publish
news
public
the
J. 8. A.
interest
(N.
or
2A:84A-21),
privilege
on a
resting
constitutional base such as the pro
tection of
Yet,
indicated,
the First Amendment.
as we have
the
can fall as in
the
of a
con
lawyer-client
ease
fidence
given
Also in
inter
of crime.
instigation
position of a
supposed First Amendment
path of a grand
fundamental govern
jury engaged
**
mental function of “fair and effective law enforcement
v.
Branzburg Hayes,
But there are necessary foundations to the valid piercing any one of privilege, which is here. absent There be a must need of legitimate party reach the -to be sought evidence shielded. There must be a showing issue relevance and evidence materiality clearly before bespeaks here court. The record also be existence of But it must these necessary elements. Court for this shown, Mountain pointed out Justice by Father, judge, “the trial the satisfaction reasonable a fair all including of the evidence preponderance * * * * * * he could inferences, that information (em- Id at 276-77 source.” secured less intrusive from phasis supplied). It obvious from Luciana testimony course Yacovelli and juror Yavoeelli would have constituted less have source, explored intrusive which source should *11 remedy contempt exhausted the drastic invoking before here ad ifrorn, less for of the appealed no the sake general of alleged ministration of for vindication the than a contemnor. matter brand It is an to inconsequential reputable of the court of contemptuous here, an he is officer. court probably predi The trial action to a cated record well upon responsive deficient evidence, on judicial hearsay reluctance probe, to partially omission verdict, of a error in its yet the was integrity jury the of relationship to confront this juror ascertaining (after of her conviction probable bearing Luciana Yacovelli and the of his with the motives) question alleged on his least To hold be admitted or disproved. that duplicity, might “less the court while this Kozlov contemned Attorney that think, was, available we source” of information was intrusive of the must judgment contempt nature that error to the Law Division the cause remanded aside, and set with inconsistent proceedings not for appropriate opinion. somewhat convoluted procedural here
In view of status and thus within on appeal jurisdiction v. Catlett (State Kozlov, R. Division, 2:9-l (a); re of the Appellate jurisdictional within the competence and so manded, we course such additional Division) suggest Law This follow. for the sake should clarity, proceedings and to circuity avoid action serve efficiently the ends of justice, inasmuch as these two litigations are in- inevitably tertwined. Catlett, Division, on the Appellate of State appeal remand trial
should court the issue concerning motion for a new trial based on the in- question juror That tegrity. done, the court being trial ex- proceed should peditiously recommended, we have inquiry say establishment of the facts by interrogation the Yaeovellis. Should that be abortive and if any other possible “less intrusive source” of evidence are repositories exhausted, it may become again necessary Attorney to press Kozlov and case as to him On the be reactivated. may other hand, if the court inquiry by trial discloses sub- stance charge Yaeovelli, bias on the of juror part it would seem right court consider just the trial such new evidence as of the Catlett bearing validity upon conviction. made
Having its determination trial, new the trial court will report same to the Division in Appellate amplifica- tion of the record before it, so that may latter proceed to consideration the whole matter tendered for its decision.
We an note additional word of caution. It is occasionally advisable, particularly where decision rests an upon opinion *12 to seeming a new chart or controversial doctrinal in path law, state that the as by thereof emphasized, limitations reference to the relevance of the circumstances of particular the case before the Court. American Trial Lawyers v. Cf. Court, New 258, 66 J. 267 Jersey Supreme N. (1974). as learned Obviously, by author of the con suggested the herein, there be other less cir curring opinion may urgent cumstances than at a present, such case in which the clear of justice, necessities the predicated upon unending law, search for truth which is the the mission of would out here. weigh the we No one can uphold not intend read reality. that We do our to be opinion doubt await whose must to such resolution extending questions, case, the specific record. upon appropriate Reversed. reached I concur the result
Handler, J., in concurring. eminently emphasizing correct the Court. The Court other should have pursued the in this case trial judge before resort taint jury possible alternatives extirpating his conviction the attorney to the ing interrogation finds The Court as the unfortunate sequel. contempt the case a privilege applicable the circumstances of this stress It considerable lays client. identity attorney’s in ad of this privilege strength pervasiveness upon means for ‘less intrusive” the trial court pursue juring 244; Ante matter. at see the truth of the ascertaining Farber, New cert. den. 259, 78 N. J. 276-277 (1978), - S.---, U. Jersey, New York Times Co. I While Ed. 598, (1978). L. 2d Ct. S. other, explored should have court trial agree of the con root ways getting more obvious action because course of I counsel would not troversy, Rather, I attorney-client privilege. of an of tíie existence and reasonable sound deem such action to be preferred exercise of discretion. the Court seems to say attorney-
The
majority
from communica-
identity wholly apart
client privilege covers
tions,
In re Kaplan,
relying
part upon
reasoning
Y.
Y.
2d
confidential and client relationship It in terms “communications”. does not protect to do with of the existence of the relationship revelation against As in Evid. B. 26 and codified identity parties. :84A-20, A. 2A the traditional attorney-client privi- 8. communications, focuses viz: upon protection lege
247 * * lawyer in the [C]ommunications and bis client between privi- confidence, relationship are course of that and in * * leged (Emphasis supplied). *. Thus in- it expressed, instructively may compared “identity”, formant’s with which deals privilege explicitly B. Evid. 36 well 2A:84A-28, and N. J. A. 8.
“shield law” which grants newspapermen specific source, author, confidentiality respect “[t]he means, whom informa- agency from or person through * * tion was N. J. 2A: B. 27 and 8. A. procured Evid. 84A-21(a).
There has been general
recognition
different contexts
the traditional attorney-client
cloak
does not
Toscano,
se.
identity per
State v.
424
418,
(1953)
noted that
of the
hold
while
authorities
“[m]ost
privilege protects
against
disclosure of
com
confidential
from the
munications
client
his
it
is
in
attorney,
tended to
concealment
permit
identity
of his
Hironimus,
client”.
Behrens
See
v.
170 F.
627
2d
Cir. 1948); United States v.
144
(4
F. 2d 778
Pape,
(2
cert.
Cir.),
den. 323
752,
U. S.
65
Ct. 86,
S.
89
Ed. 602
L.
States,
Tomlinson
(1944);
v. United
68
D. C.
App.
106,
93 F.
652 (D. C. Cir.
cert.
1937),
2d
den. sub nom. Pratt
States,
v. United
Super.
322-323 (App. Div.
1978),
illustra
citing
cases,
tive
N. L. R. B. v. Harvey,
1965); case, claimed this hardly re It can be supra,. Kaplan, however, that, having divulged, the communication its anonymity there need to preserve lingering author. attorney-client breadth of the addition,
In doubts to the than rather be by narrowing, settled ought privilege eases reiterated in many It has been its widening, scope. should for with the truth interfere search privileges Jamison, J. 64 N. E. State restrictively. g., be construed v. 498, (1969); N. 506 Briley, v. 53 J. 363, 375 State (1974); re Selser, also, In 393, (1954); 15 N. J. 405-407 Farber, J., dissenting). (Handler, 78 N. J. 301 Richardson, In 31 re expressed The matter was aptly : 391, 396 (1960) it runs in the exclusion of evidence Since the results widely “that fullest disclosure of the
counter to the held view ultimately triumph to the facts will lead to truth and best justice.” Selser, (1954). re In N. 405 See 15 J. This an construc- healthy justify expansive does not policy tion of encompass only the attorney-client privilege identity confidential but the communications as such communications. parties to such While is no there legal impediment upon grounded would prevent disclosure the client’s identity, it not follow such does disclosure would come about ease as a matter of every course. would be wrong It assume that the revelation of a party’s even identity, to. the absence of be would automatic privilege, regardless circumstances. Whether disclosure be occurs must addressed discretion of sound the trial As with all judge. production demands evidence or for discovery evidence, find the court must need for such weigh evidence or discovery concerns of countervailing individuals such demands. resisting It must determine under the circumstances of the whether particular controversy should -whether safeguards resistance reasonable unfair harassment, unnecessary erected to protect against B. B. 4 and Evid. ness, or Consider oppression. generally, N. J. 576 (1978); 4:10-3 well State v. Mingo, N. J. 360 Authority, Sewerage Schlossberg Jersey City Wasserstein (1949); State v. J. 540 (1954); Cooper, Co., 1964). Div. v. Swern Super. (App. case, At would juncture appear in the present reasonable of evidence entirely require the pursuit than jury alternative means other impropriety through disclosure of The Court’s identity. the client’s compelling *15 choice, for Ante 235-236 opinion the reasons explains couched in the though terminology privilege, even should which they salutary nevertheless reflect considerations In the a court in the exercise of sound discretion. a guide a to reveal the client even event there is continued demand evidence, the trial court should after the of other production upon then balance the intrusiveness impact and the disclosure with the adequacy client-witness such requiring in at the truth. of the available evidence terms arriving to avoid a witness’ sincere desire for anonymity Although does embarrassment, inconvenience the like personal in a civil weigh heavily might not a criminal case consideration case, it nonetheless invite conscientious should and, road if should look down the the court. The court the route leading contempt. avoid possible, following Cf. Carton, Moreover, In J. 9 (1966). re Contempt of for count anonymity may client’s wish while the or State in the of a defendant much needs against en- may anxieties proceedings, context of criminal in civil involving controversies titled solicitude greater for truth a always the search While litigants. only private in- private between value, contending the struggle paramount not, a action, privilege involving in a civil whether terests is more balanced. evenly Court, there is in circumstances holding an which secrete attorney-client
this case serves to communications, em identity, client’s well as his phasizes that if in later privilege, invoked proceedings, might well have to of the criminal yield importunities e. system, g., 408 U. S. Branzburg Hayes, S. Ct. L. Ed. 2d 626 criminal de (1972), fendant’s constitutional claims for a trial at the hands of Farber, fair and In impartial re The Court jury, supra. cf. is correct in out that than abso less pointing lute and the which it to protect way seeks would give values in a collision with those inhere in constitutional and fair context, administration In of criminal justice. a client’s fear of embarrassment and the possible quenching useful, information relevant though anonymous, cause law would not surmount the need to enforcement disclose his where an identity important is shown to be he do, however, witness. as I is not identity Believing I shrouded would have even less by any privilege, difficulty how the balance struck determining should be between interests of the client-witness and those of the conflicting defendant and the in a criminal proceeding. State
Eor I reasons, these concur separately disposition the Court.
Handler, J., in the result. concurring *16 Hughes For reversal and remandment —Chief Justice Mountain, Sullivan, Justices Pashman, Clieeord, Schreiber and Handler —7.
For affirmance —Hone.