RISHAN SAGAR, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Court granted certiorari and quashed trial court orders compelling defense experts appointed under Rule 3.216(a) to disclose confidential materials to co-defendants, holding that lawyer-client privilege protects such expert communications unless the defendant actually calls the expert to testify.
Defense experts appointed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(a) are protected by lawyer-client privilege, and this privilege is waived only if the defendant actually calls the expert to testify, not merely by listing the expert as a potential witness or providing required copies of reports.
[1] Disclosure of confidential expert reports required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(g) does not waive lawyer-client privilege protecting the expert's underlyin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rule 3.216(a) expressly states that the experts appointed under this subsection shall only report to the attorney for the defendant and matters related to the experts shall fall under the lawyer-client privilege.”
Court's statement of the controlling rule protecting expert communications
Petitioner Sagar, a criminal defendant, had appointed defense experts under Rule 3.216(a) whose notes, records, communications, opinions, reports and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidential Communications cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
Petitioner Rishan Sagar, defendant below, seeks certiorari review of two circuit court orders compelling defense experts, appointed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(a), to provide their notes, records, communications, opinions, reports and data to the co-defendants.1
Rule 3.216(a) expressly states that the experts appointed under this subsection shall only report to the attorney for the defendant and matters related to the experts shall fall under the lawyer-client privilege. The privilege is only waived if the defendant actually calls the confidential expert to testify. See Sanders v. State, 707 So. 2d 664 (Fla.1998); Morgan v. State, 639 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1994); Lovette v. State, 636 So. 2d 1304 (Fla.1994). The fact that the defendant lists the expert as a potential witness is not sufficient to waive the privilege. See Ursry v. State, 428 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 438 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1983). Although petitioner provided copies of the confidential experts’ reports, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(g), this limited disclosure is not sufficient to waive the privilege. Therefore, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the trial court’s orders are quashed.
PETITION GRANTED AND ORDERS QUASHED. . .
W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ. concur. . Petitioner also seeks review of an oral order granting the state's ore terms motion for production, but the oral order has not been rendered and therefore is not reviewable. See In re: Guardianship of A.P., 644 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lovette v. State, 636 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1994)
- Morgan v. State, 639 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1994)
- Kristopher Sanders v. State, 707 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1998)
- Alvarado v. State, 644 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Ursry v. State, 428 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Lucinda Eddy v. The Town OF Indian River Shores, 428 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)