## Facts

- John W. Warren died from knife wounds after a fight with Henry LeRoy Gray on September 7, 1962, prompting a homicide investigation in King County, Washington.
- Gray retained attorney David H. Olwell.
- Olwell came into possession of a knife that might have been used in the killing, allegedly acquired through his representation of Gray.
- A coroner’s inquest was convened on September 18, 1962 to investigate Warren’s death.
- Olwell was served with a subpoena duces tecum directing him to bring any knives in his possession or control relating to Gray, Gloria Pugh, or Warren.
- At the inquest, Olwell refused to answer whether he had a knife relating to Gray and refused to produce any such knife, citing attorney-client confidentiality and the client’s privilege against self-incrimination.
- The King County Superior Court held Olwell in contempt and imposed a two-day jail sentence for noncompliance.
- Olwell appealed the contempt order.

## Issues

1. Whether attorney-client privilege permits an attorney to refuse to produce physical evidence of a crime obtained through the representation in response to a subpoena at a coroner’s inquest.
2. Whether an attorney may refuse to produce such evidence by asserting the client’s privilege against self-incrimination.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the contempt adjudication.
- The court held that attorney-client privilege does not allow an attorney to indefinitely withhold material physical evidence of a crime that came into the attorney’s possession through the representation.
- The court recognized that the privilege may justify withholding such evidence for a reasonable time to allow counsel to examine it and advise the client.
- The court held that the privilege against self-incrimination is personal to the client and cannot be asserted by the attorney to resist production or testimony.
- After a reasonable time, the attorney must surrender the physical evidence to proper authorities and cannot use privilege doctrines to permanently suppress it.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney-client privilege can extend beyond verbal or written communications to protect the fact of obtaining certain physical items through confidential communications, but only to a limited extent.
- The privilege does not authorize indefinite suppression of material physical evidence; a lawyer’s duties as an officer of the court constrain the use of privilege as a shield for ongoing concealment.
- A lawyer may temporarily withhold physical evidence obtained through the representation for a reasonable time to permit inspection, investigation, and legal advice.
- The privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right of the client and generally cannot be invoked vicariously by counsel to refuse compliance with lawful compulsory process directed at the lawyer.
- Courts may enforce subpoenas for physical evidence and may sanction noncompliance through contempt when privilege does not justify continued withholding.

## Conclusion

The court upheld contempt sanctions against an attorney who refused at a coroner’s inquest to answer questions or produce a potentially incriminating knife, holding that attorney-client privilege cannot be used to indefinitely withhold physical evidence obtained through representation and that counsel cannot invoke the client’s self-incrimination privilege to resist production.


State ex rel. Sowers v. Olwell, 64 Wn.2d 828, 394 P.2d 681 (Wash. 1964)