## Facts

- Albert Fentress was indicted for intentional murder under N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(1).
- After the killing, Fentress telephoned Wallace Schwartz, a lawyer and family friend, seeking legal advice and describing the event.
- Schwartz contacted his mother; she then spoke with Fentress, and the police were contacted.
- Police arrested Fentress and discovered the victim’s body in Fentress’s home.
- Fentress moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming Schwartz’s disclosures violated the attorney–client privilege under CPLR 4503.
- Fentress argued the Grand Jury evidence was derived from an unwaived privileged communication and therefore had to be excluded, requiring dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether Fentress’s phone communication with Schwartz qualified as a confidential attorney–client communication made in the course of professional employment under CPLR 4503.
2. Whether any breach of attorney–client privilege required suppression of evidence obtained directly or derivatively from the disclosure, and dismissal of a Grand Jury indictment based on that evidence.
3. Whether Fentress waived (in whole or part) any privilege through his words or conduct involving third parties and subsequent events.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.
- The court held that CPLR 4503 did not support the broad exclusionary remedy Fentress sought (suppression of all derivative evidence and dismissal).
- The court concluded the Grand Jury evidence was sufficient to establish intentional murder, and the privilege claim did not warrant terminating the prosecution.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney–client privilege under CPLR 4503 protects only confidential communications made in the course of professional employment and is subject to waiver.
- CPLR 4503 is a nondisclosure rule; it does not, by its terms, create an automatic exclusionary rule requiring suppression of all evidence derived from a claimed breach, nor does it mandate dismissal of an indictment.
- Alleged ethical or professional misconduct by counsel does not automatically translate into evidentiary suppression or immunity from criminal prosecution absent a clear legal basis.

## Conclusion

The court refused to treat an alleged breach of attorney–client confidentiality as a basis to suppress derivative evidence and dismiss an intentional murder indictment, emphasizing the limited statutory scope of CPLR 4503, the role of waiver, and the absence of a broad privilege-based exclusionary remedy.


People v. Fentress, 425 N.Y.S.2d 485 (Dutchess Cty. Ct. 1980)