## Facts

- David Wade was killed and robbed; Michael Meredith and Frank Earl Scott were charged and later convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery.
- After the crimes, Scott retained counsel and confidentially told his attorney that he took Wade’s wallet, attempted to burn it, and disposed of it in a receptacle behind Scott’s residence.
- Acting on counsel’s directions derived solely from Scott’s confidential statement, a defense investigator located the partially burned wallet in the receptacle behind Scott’s residence, removed it, and delivered it to counsel.
- Counsel examined the wallet and turned it over to police without disclosing where it had been found.
- At trial, the prosecution offered the wallet and sought to prove its original location as circumstantial evidence linking Scott (and, by theory, Meredith) to the robbery and killing.
- Over privilege objections, the court permitted the defense investigator to testify that he found the victim’s partially burned wallet in a trash receptacle behind Scott’s residence; the defense established that the investigator acted at defense counsel’s direction.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed; the California Supreme Court granted review on, among other issues, whether the wallet-location testimony was protected by the attorney-client privilege.

## Issues

1. Whether the attorney-client privilege bars testimony about an investigator’s observation of the original location (and condition) of physical evidence when the observation resulted from a privileged communication.
2. Whether any privilege protection is lost when defense counsel or an agent removes or alters physical evidence, thereby affecting the prosecution’s ability to find it in its original location or condition.

## Decision

- The court held the privilege did not bar disclosure of the wallet’s original location once the defense, through its agent, removed the wallet.
- The court limited compelled disclosure to the evidence’s original location or condition; the client’s confidential communications remained privileged.
- The court affirmed admission of the investigator’s testimony that the wallet was found in a receptacle behind Scott’s residence.
- The judgments of conviction were affirmed, subject to limited modifications not central to the privilege ruling.

## Legal Principles

- The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and counsel, including communications through counsel’s agents.
- Information derived from a privileged communication may remain protected when it would effectively disclose the communication and when the defense does not interfere with the prosecution’s access to the underlying evidence.
- If defense counsel or counsel’s agent removes or alters physical evidence discovered through a privileged communication, the privilege does not protect testimony about the evidence’s original location or condition when the defense action has deprived the prosecution of the opportunity to discover it in that original state.
- If the defense merely observes evidence and leaves it undisturbed, observations derived from the client’s communication may remain privileged because the prosecution’s opportunity to discover the evidence is not impaired.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a limited exception to privilege: when the defense removes or alters physical evidence obtained through privileged communications, the prosecution may prove the evidence’s original location or condition, though the client’s confidential statements remain protected.


People v. Meredith, 29 Cal. 3d 682 (Cal. 1981)