## Facts

- Joel Rodriguez was charged with participating in a cocaine-trafficking conspiracy and detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn.
- MDC inmate telephone calls were recorded and monitored, with repeated warnings; Rodriguez had access to unmonitored attorney communications through designated channels.
- On March 1, 2009, Rodriguez placed a recorded call (in Spanish) to his sister, Francia, asking her to tell their brother “Tito” to inform Rodriguez’s lawyer that Rodriguez wanted to “cop out” before indictment (i.e., explore an early guilty plea).
- The government sought to introduce the recorded call at trial as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
- Rodriguez objected, arguing the statement was protected by attorney–client privilege because it was intended for his attorney via a family intermediary, and alternatively was inadmissible as plea-discussion evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 410.
- The district court admitted the recording, and a jury convicted Rodriguez of conspiracy and attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846.
- Rodriguez appealed, challenging the admission of the recorded call.

## Issues

1. Whether a recorded, monitored jail call to a defendant’s sister intended to be relayed to counsel is protected by the attorney–client privilege, or whether the lack of confidentiality on a monitored line defeats or waives the privilege.
2. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 410 bars admission of a defendant’s statement expressing interest in pleading guilty when made to a family member rather than to an attorney for the prosecuting authority.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the recorded call was not protected by attorney–client privilege because Rodriguez could not reasonably expect confidentiality on a monitored, recorded jail line after notice; any privilege was waived by using that medium.
- The court held Rule 410 did not apply because the statement was not made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority, but in a private call to a family member.
- The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by admitting the recording.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney–client privilege protects confidential communications for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; it does not apply where the communicator lacks a reasonable expectation of confidentiality or knowingly uses a monitored channel.
- Use of a third party does not preserve privilege unless the third party’s participation is reasonably necessary to secure legal advice; a family member acting as a messenger, where confidential attorney channels are available, generally does not satisfy that requirement.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 410 excludes specified statements made in plea discussions only when the discussions are with an attorney for the prosecuting authority; unilateral expressions of interest in pleading, conveyed to non-governmental third parties, fall outside the rule.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld admission of a defendant’s monitored jail call expressing a desire to plead guilty because the call lacked confidentiality required for attorney–client privilege and was not a protected plea discussion under Rule 410.


United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2011)