Note
Kansas Prosecutors Refuse Court Order Over Secretly Recorded Attorney Meetings
In 2020, federal prosecutors in Kansas refused a judge's order to open their files to prisoners whose meetings with their lawyers had been secretly recorded.
Written by Brandon Sample · Updated · Filed under Trial
On August 20, 2020, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Kansas told a federal court it would not obey an order to turn over evidence. The office had been caught secretly recording meetings between defendants and their lawyers at the CCA detention facility in Leavenworth, Kansas, and hundreds of prisoners were challenging their convictions as a result. The original article, by Dale Chappell, called the refusal a bold move that probably surprised no one.
The Court's Order
On July 27, 2020, Chief Judge Julie Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ordered the government to open its files to hundreds of prisoners who had been recorded meeting with their lawyers at the Leavenworth facility. They were challenging the convictions the government obtained after those meetings. See In re CCA Recordings, No. 2:19-cv-02491 (D. Kan. July 27, 2020).
The Government's Response
The government filed a "United States' Notice of Intent Not to Provide Further Discovery." It said it "cannot and will not comply with the court's July 27, 2020 discovery order." It acknowledged it could be held in contempt and face other sanctions, but it was willing to take that chance.
The government said it had already been "punished" enough. According to the original article, the government pointed to having to fire the prosecutors who used the secret recordings.
The government argued it had already spent enough time and money on the investigation. The original article reported the government's estimate that complying would cost another $3.5 million.
The government did not offer any evidence that the secret recordings were not used to get the convictions being challenged. Even so, it asked the court to deny all the prisoners' claims as "unfounded." It argued that because the prisoners had pleaded guilty, they were obviously guilty.
Chappell disagreed. In his view, the government ignored that it had pressured those guilty pleas by overcharging the defendants and then offering to drop gun charges, which would have required mandatory sentences of several decades, in exchange for guilty pleas.
The government also said the court's order went against "fundamental principles of justice and fairness." Chappell found it unsurprising, given the Justice Department's leadership at the time, that the government would openly defy a federal judge, and he pointed out the irony of the government invoking justice and fairness while defending its recording of defendants' meetings with their lawyers.
Why It Matters
Private conversations with your lawyer are protected by the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and by attorney-client privilege. When the government records those conversations, it raises serious questions about whether a conviction was fairly obtained, even one based on a guilty plea.
A practical lesson for anyone in custody: assume calls, video visits and messages may be monitored. Don't discuss your case on recorded jail or prison phones or on TRULINCS, the federal prison email system, and ask your lawyer how to communicate safely.
More by Dale Chappell:
JUSTFAIR New Tool Gives Power Back to the People
Habeas Gap Delays: California's 120-Day Safe Harbor
Facing a federal sentence? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.