There has to be some confusion here.

Doug, you are mistaken. It is a notorious fact that District Attorneys, or Attorney Generals do in fact control grand juries. That is not even controversial. It is not a particularly left-wing idea. Every lawyer knows that it's true. And our constitutional "right" to be indicted by grand juries is thus a joke.

Aine: I am sure that Ashcroft is up to things that are scary. But what Lynn Stuart is accused of, among other things, is conveying to the press what amounts to instructions to hit-men. The lawyer-client privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and his/her client. Messages to be conveyed to the press are not "confidential." Thus if I am accused of a crime, and tell my lawyer where I hid the body, that is a privileged communication. It is confidential, and it is information the lawyer needs to conduct the defense. But if I tell him to go tell Cheech and Guido to go whack some witnesses, that is a communication intended for third persons not necessary to the defense, no privilege attaches, and no principle whatsoever suggests that that the communication should be protected.

A communication is likewise not privileged if the lawyer is retained for the purpose of perpetrating a crime or fraud.

Finally, California is much more jealous of evidentiary privileges that almost anyone else. But there was a recent case where the accused told his lawyer not to worry about the trial, because he was going to have the prosecuting witnesses "whacked." He reported that to the police, and the court quickly found another exception - where disclosure is necessary to prevent someone from being killed or harmed.

I personally think that was correct. Do you disagree?