241: (Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina 21 September 2011) ("In Quattlebaum, this Court emphasized that "litigants, and especially defendants in criminal cases, should not be hampered in their choice of those by whom they choose to prove their cases.""),
187:, should have been allowed to continue involvement in prosecution of the case and whether the defendant, having been made aware of the breach of privilege, should have been allowed to impeach the prosecution based on said breach.
179:
in an interview room that was monitored and videotaped. Subsequent to his interview, the defendant was allowed to confer with counsel in the same interview room, with detectives and prosecutors listening in a remote location.
284:
199:
Because a deputy solicitor of the 11th circuit solicitor's office eavesdropped on a privileged conversation between appellant and his attorney, we reverse appellant's conviction...
289:
294:
279:
299:
152:
29:
242:
85:
81:
175:
and was sentenced to death at trial. During pretrial investigations, the defendant was questioned and
184:
160:
126:
260:
89:
172:
148:
273:
77:
40:
The State of South
Carolina, Respondent, v. Robert Joseph Quattlebaum, Appellant.
259: (Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina 4 January 2000),
176:
156:
131:
183:
The appeal focused on whether the prosecutor, having heard
171:
James was arrested for a variety of charges including
117:
109:
101:
96:
73:
68:
60:
45:
35:
25:
20:
159:that a defendant may, with restrictions, call the
155:. The case is notable for having established the
285:United States attorney–client privilege case law
8:
17:
147:(338 S.C. 441, 527 S.E.2d 105) is a 2000
229:
209:
290:United States state evidence case law
7:
14:
295:2000 in United States case law
1:
280:South Carolina state case law
153:South Carolina Supreme Court
64:527 S.E.2d 105; 338 S.C. 441
30:South Carolina Supreme Court
113:Toal, Moore, Waller, Howell
316:
49:January 24, 2000
122:
185:privileged communication
300:2000 in South Carolina
201:
197:
161:prosecuting attorney
21:State v. Quattlebaum
256:State v Quattlebaum
144:State v Quattlebaum
127:Admissible evidence
92:, William T. Howell
195:The court found:
140:
139:
90:E. C. Burnett III
307:
264:
258:
252:
246:
240:
234:
217:
214:
69:Court membership
56:
54:
18:
315:
314:
310:
309:
308:
306:
305:
304:
270:
269:
268:
267:
254:
253:
249:
236:
235:
231:
226:
221:
220:
216:Filling vacancy
215:
211:
206:
193:
169:
136:
52:
50:
12:
11:
5:
313:
311:
303:
302:
297:
292:
287:
282:
272:
271:
266:
265:
247:
228:
227:
225:
222:
219:
218:
208:
207:
205:
202:
192:
189:
173:capital murder
168:
165:
163:as a witness.
138:
137:
135:
134:
129:
123:
120:
119:
115:
114:
111:
107:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
93:
86:John H. Waller
82:James E. Moore
75:
74:Judges sitting
71:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
47:
43:
42:
37:
36:Full case name
33:
32:
27:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
312:
301:
298:
296:
293:
291:
288:
286:
283:
281:
278:
277:
275:
262:
257:
251:
248:
244:
239:
238:State v Inman
233:
230:
223:
213:
210:
203:
200:
196:
190:
188:
186:
181:
178:
174:
166:
164:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:
133:
130:
128:
125:
124:
121:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
97:Case opinions
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
76:
72:
67:
63:
59:
48:
44:
41:
38:
34:
31:
28:
24:
19:
16:
255:
250:
237:
232:
212:
198:
194:
182:
170:
143:
142:
141:
78:Jean H. Toal
39:
15:
177:polygraphed
167:Particulars
110:Concurrence
102:Decision by
274:Categories
224:References
53:2000-01-24
157:precedent
132:Witnesses
191:Findings
149:decision
118:Keywords
61:Citation
151:of the
105:Burnett
51: (
46:Decided
204:Notes
26:Court
261:Text
243:Text
276::
88:,
84:,
80:,
263:.
245:.
55:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.