VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE Ha ga z ine , Spring -Summe r 1975 (Journal of Tex. Cr. Defense Lawyers Assln
TRB "RIBBD GUI"
An Anachronism in Texas
Criminal Procedure
Charles p, Bubany
Private attorneys are commonly used in the prosecution of
criminal ca~'S in Texas. A loose practice has developed of
rderrin~ to any private attorney acting on behalf of the State
asa "special prosecutor" whether hl' is(t) a formally
.
appointt'd substitute for the re~ular prosecutor, (2) a
temporary as."ist.mt employed by the prosecutor's office, 9r
(3) an attorney retained by private interests to assist the
prosccution. Loose use of the "special prosecutor" label is
symptomatic of the cloudy status in Texas law of the
privately-employed attorney acting as a public prosecutorr
the so-called "hird gun" or "private executioner".
In May 1973, Article 2.07 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was amended to make clear that the trial court
may appoint a substitute attorney (attorney pro-tern)
whent'ver the regular prosecuting attorney is either
unavailable or disqualified . The substitute may act only
"during the absence or disqualification of the attorney for the
state", and if he is not regularly employed as a State's
attorney, he must take the oath of office. The substitute from
another prosecutor's office is to receive no additional pay. A
private attorney is to be paid by the county according to the
schedule of compensation in Article 26.05 for representation
of indigents.
The Code contains no express authority for employment
without court-appointment of special or temporary assistants
to aid the prosecution. But under the case law , private
Ittorneys are permitted to participate as mere volunteers or
as employees of either the prosecution itself or intt'rested I
private parties, including till' victim or his family . The only
limitation is that their participation must be merely
assistance; the public prosecutor must rl'lain control,
management and supervision of the case. See Powers v.
Hauck, 399 F.2d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1968) & cases cited .
In the recent case of Ballard v. State, 519 S.W.2d 426, the
Court of Criminal Appeals avoided the issue presented by
intensive participation of an attorney employed by the
victim's family when it rl'vl'rsed thl' murder conviction on
another ground . The privatl' prosecutor del iverl'd the
opening statement, argued motions, conducted direct
examination of State witnesses, cross-examined defense
witnesses, made a closing argument, prl'pared the State's
brief on appeal, delivered oral arguml'nt in thl' Court of
Crininal Appeals and filed a motion for rl'hl'aring.
Interestingly the privatl'ly.-l'mployl'd attornl'Y was referred
to by one judge on the Court of Criminal Appl'als as a
"special prosecutor" (judgl' Morrison, concurring in reversal
on rehearing) even though hl' was nl'ver appointl'd as a
substitite prosecutor undt'r the statute. In fact, the State also
was represented at the trial by two public prosecutors from
different counties. In the opinion adopted by the Court on the
original hearing of the case, Commissioner Dally stated the
"well-settled" rule that "dUl' process is not denied by
permitting a privately rl'tainl'd attorney to participate in a
criminal prosecution whl'n the district attorney retains
CHARLES P. BUBANY, Associate Professor at Texas Tecll
University Scllool of Law, rrccived a J.D. dl'xrl'r frolll Wasllill,~ton
Ulliversity (St. Louis) ill 1965 alld was adlllittrd to "mctiet' ill Mi
souri ill 1966. After discllarxe frolll ti,e NallY as a Law S,'e(ialist
in 1970, hr I'racticrd law in St. Louis u"til ;oi"i",1{ ti,e faCility of
the Texas Tech U"ivcrsitySclrool of Law i" tI,r Fall of 1971.
Siner at Texas Trcll, Professor BIIIIlI"y Iras tall,I{/lt l"slIrllller,
InternatiOllal Law, Apprllate Adl'Ocacy IIIld Lesal Rrsearcll a"d
Writing. He is prrse"t1y teacllill.I{ Cri",i"al Law a"d Procedure,
Criminal Procedurr Srmi"ar, Lrxal Drafti",I{, a"d a clinical course
in Prosecuting Crimes and /uve"ilc Ddi"qllr"cirs. TI,is past year
he seroed as Faculty Advisor to the Moot COllrt Board a"d Faculty
Sponsor of the Texas Tech mtry ill thrABA Natio"alC/iimt
Counseling Competition. He is a membf!r of Phi Delta Phi Lrgal
Fraternity lind an associate member of TCDLA , also seroi"8 on its
Committtt on Rftlision of the Texas Criminal Codts.
5
control and l11anageOlI..'nt of the proseclltion ." Pl'rhaps
11l'caus(' the i:.sue was inartfully briefed, Commissioner D<llly
WdS able to S.lY th.lt "il is not ,'llegl'd th,11 they [the diSlrict
allornt'ys "who Wl'r(' both ,lCtivl! in thl' prosecution"] did not
have control and mallc1g(,llll.'nt of the pros('culion."
ApJX'lI,ll1l had argul'lIlhiltthc privale .lltOrney h.ld ilct('d.lSd
special prosecutor without bein!;appointt'd a-; such as
required by law, but COEnmissiOlwr Dally conclud('J thallhis
W,1S only re'luin..-d \\'1\('1\ thl'ell.'Cled districl alloflll'y was
disqualified.
Oll(, C,ll) hiHdly quam"l with the aprointment of privitle
illlOfll('Ys as :;Ubslitutl.' proseculors. UUlihe pr.lCtice of
permitting thl'ir parlicip.llioll wh<'1l public prll.'icCulors oH{'
available Sl'ems juslifirlble only as a V(,Slit;1' of a long since
ah,lIldon('d sysl('m of private pros(·culiol). The b,lSic pre-miSl'
of thl'uniqudy Anll'ric.ln :;YSll'llI of public proseculion is Ihat
pro.<;ecutioll (kcisions shollid b(' b,ls('d on a public as opposed
10 a personally vindiclive or privolte inl('resl. This notion is
rl'fll'cl('d lJy l\~:<ils Codl-' of Criminal Procedure, Article 2.01
which providl'S Ihilt: "It shall Ix> Ihe pfilllMY duly of ,111
prOSl'clitinr"lttOrlll'YS, including allY special proseculors, not
to convicl, bul tose(' Ih;lt j\l~lic(> is done." Privilte proseclliion
may havl' ocl' n consisl('llt with ,111 earlier view of criminal
punishment prilll<l1'i Iy for rl'trib\11 iOIl or revenge, but it is
incOJlsislent wilh our modern thl'ory of p"llishm('nt.
TIll' limil.ltioll of privilll' participation 10 mere assistance
obviously reflecls., polic}' th.11 the prosC'CLltion should rclain
.1 predominiltely pllhlic Ch.u.lcl('r, with Ihe public prosecutor
milking the uitin1<1le dl'cisiollsCllllcel'llillg how the
proS('clilion is cOllduCh:'<i. But ill practic('sigllific.ll1lly lIIore
Ih<l11 mere .l~sisl.lnce will bt> permitted. CUl1silier,lble
l'videliCl' exisls that wh.1l ofc\lrred ill the Ballard caS{' is
neither uncommun 1I0r 1I1lI!xpectilbll'. Many prosecutors will
permit the poHlicipiltioll of privall.·ly hired allorlll'Ys wilh
liule or 110 reslriction Oil till' scope o( their activily,and in
m.ll1}' casl'S will allow th(' pri Vii It' prtls('Clitor 10 control the
IIclioll limitcd only b}' th(· pres(,llct' 01 a melllher of Ihe
pros(,ClIlor's SI,lfl all ri.ll. Thl' prosaulor m.l}' be inclined to
lilke a back s('.ll for .1Ily tlullIlx!r of re,lsons. H4.' may wish 10
prevl'nl d isp"lt's lx'llVl'e 11 cOlIllSl'l Ih,li wou Id ha mpe r
pro5('clllioJlof Ihe case (Ihl' privall> allorne}' might be expect4.'d
to bl'les., I han l'Ollll'rOlnisillg) or to avoid ilppl?.-.ring !('ss
zeillous tlMIl the privale aIlOflll'Y.
The Iri.ll judgl' in TI'xas lik('ly willnol dis.1Jlprove. Th\;,
COUl'l of Crimill.ll Appe.lls has indicatl'd a generrlll}'
p(,fIllissivl' ilttillllil'loWclrd p.uticipaliull by privale
pros(,clIllIr~ and h.1S not .)lIe11\pll'd 10 dr.l\\, .1 cI('iIf lille
b4.'lwl'en Illl're a~isli\nl'l' and COllt rol of the proceedint;s. Also
it hilS been willing to filld Ihall'wn if parlicip,llioll by iI
priv,1te attonll'Y were more Ihan mere assistitnce, il is not
reversible lll'CiHlS~' il did nol result in such .. fundamentally
lllltilir trial i'lS to cOl~stjlute iI deni.ll of dlle procl'SS.
The prl'~nt s}'stern might pl'rhilp5 bl' dl'femled onlhe
ground Ihill t1w Slille should be illlo\Yed 10 nlclke USl' of any
i1vailable ,,~i::;t'lnce rego1rclle:;sof its source. Bllt this is 110t
unlike Rrguing th,ll "lIl.'\,idellce helpful 10 the 51.11(' should be
,1dmitled nu Illath;'r how obt,lilled. It might o1lso be ilrgut'd
Ih.lt prosenlliolls mulivated hy priv.lle ~X'rsons' desir(' for
"l'n~l',lnCl' ere.l.tl· Ill?,srealer potenti<'ll for .Ib\l_'i(' 1~lc1n.l strictly
public pru~Clltlllll. IVIl'lIgeallce IS nol necessarily il more
corrupting lllotiVl' than politic.11 ambilion", Conlllll'Ilt,u5
YALE L.J. 209,229(1955), imd lnany l11i1y (Illest ion wht'lhL'r <'I
public prost'cutm i'i ally lll11rL' dispil!>sionclll' Of obj(lcli\'l'than
it pri ""te pn:>'S('clltor in m,ll1}' C.1Sl'S. But IIIl' (.KI th.11 public
prosecutors In,l}' have olher I h,ll\ idea I mot; \'l':) tiOl'S 1I0t
change whallhe moti\'esof anyolll'ilcting as prOSt'ClIlor
should bl'.
RegMdll's.s of th(' .lClualllloliv{':; of till' privale proSE'clltor,
his pMlicipaliollSl'emS inCOllsist('nt with pre".liling
stillldards of prOJX'r prOSl'clllori.ll cunduc\. Ac«),ding 10 the
ABA Stal1d.uds l{elaling 10 the Prosecution and Ih~
Defense Function, "II is of Ilw ullnosl ill1l>orl,ll1ce tl"'llhl'
6
proseculor clvoid participalion in a cilse in circumstanc('s
where clny implication of pMti,'lit}' m.1Y c.lsl ,1sh,lc\OW OVN
Ihe inll.'grily of his office." To Ihis ('Jl{!, the AI3A COll)nli\t('('
h,lS r('commended that.l Proseculor ",woid thl' .1I'p~>ar,ll1ce
or rl:'ality Of ..l conflict of inl('r('st with r('spect to his offici.ll
duties" which could arise when "a busine,:; fMl'lnl'l" or
dssociate or iI relali ve ba~ any interl'~1 in il crilllin,l1 C.1S(',
either .15 11 complilining willlt>$S, a party or as counsd." Ibid,
The priv.ltely-elllployed pros(,C\ltor has a lJusinl'ss
relationship with ~rS(JIlS interesled in tl14.' cas(', and dS a
result, does not ,1Ct primilrily in thl:' public intl!r<':;t as
required by TEX. CODE CRIMINA L PI{OC., Arl. 2.01 but for
privale gilin and o1Silll ilgl'nt of private interest. Public
knowled~e of il privilll'ly-fhlallCl'd prosl.'cllliun could have
an underminingdfect on Iheinlegrilyof Iheuiminal
process and ils public image. How Ih(·I.l\v is prosecul('d
should nol depend 011 I hl' polilicill cloul or olll('r infhll'IICl'of
the viclim or hb family. Is illo Ihe bt'ndit of Ihe Slate 10
;,ssravate lil(' pervasiv{' fl'('ling Ih,il only I hI' weollthy Me
vindicated?
The grt'.,test d.mger of private prosecutions iSlh;,1 illl
ov('rzealolls O1llorm:'y will commit l'frors th.ll are nol only
prejudicial to til(' dd('nliant but ultilll:llely to Illl' 5t;lte. Th('
privale prOSt'clllor who is CharilCIl:'rized o1S an "assisl;II\I",
volunteer or otherwise, need not be formally i1ppoint('d nor
I.lk(' the o.llh of offic(' and Illil}' be p,lid i'lny Slllll, perh,lps by
conlingl'lll fet' olfrangl'lIll'nts with 11ll:' family, the
cOllting{'ncy bl'ing il filvorabll' result. Such arrangements in
criminal cases have bel'n condl:'mnl'd, 11 A.L.R. 1192 (1921),
although no Tl'xas courl h()s cll'ilrly cI.mfronled Ihe issue. An
.1110rney under i1 conlillg(,lIt fl'e contrilfl (ould wl'lI view his
oblig<ltioll ;lsobl,lining whal his e1il:'nt desir('s, l'cgardl('ssof
Ihl' cost, (,'.'(,11 .1ppell.lte rever~,ll.
\3L'Co1"S(, of th(' risks involvl'd, coulls('1 should be unwilling
to rely onlhe good f"ith of the private prosl:'cutor and Ihe
ilbility of thl' trial judg(' 10 prevl'nl elftivit}' by him Ih,lt is
prl'jlldiciallo Ih{' .lCclIsl'd .1t Irial. In facl, thl' mNe
elpp('ariln(l' Of;l \'olulltl'er prosecutor might be inherently
prl'judicio11, for ('x.lmpl(' b}'le,lding tlw jury lolJdi('ve thelt
"s('nt illl('1l1 W.1S so aroused .lg.linst the acclI~d .1:; to c.luse
co II I\SI' I to vohmtet'r to assisl thL' SI.ltl'," Loshe v. State, 272
S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. Cr. App. 195,1). TIIIlS, ill 011\)' caM' in
which d('I(,IlS(' c()ullwl illltidp,:Ul'S Ih(' possibilil)' of
p.uticip.ltion bY;l priville atlOrlwy, h(' should consider filing
i1 pr('-I rial moliOIl for iI proll'(liv(' or(\('r dirl'Cling IIll' Stale's
;,IIOrtley 10 handle IIll' C,lSl' .111d rl'Sl riclillt:; Ihl' privatl'
illlornl'}' fromactiv(' participillioll . The motion mightlakert
form simil.u 10 the follo\\'illg:
Defendant's Motion for a Court Order Governing the
Participatioll of Privolt~ Attorn~ys
To til(' l-Iollor<1hll' Clwrl:
Th(' I){>(endilnl in this callSC', through cO\lnsel, respectfully
move:; tht> Courl to i55UC' all ordl'r gllv(,flling Ihe
pt1rticip.ltiofl in hi::; Iri.ll of 11ttOrtll'yS pllrporling 10 act on
behalf of I Ill' 5t,Ile who h.1\'I:' Ilot bl.'I.'n furmally .1ppoillled to
<1CI .1S slIch .1ccordillr. to Te:<.ls IhrJ('s of Crimin.l1 Procedure,
ilrlicl(' 2.07, to-wit : Iha! all}' .1t1onwys other thall those duly
l'1ected or appoillll'd to l'L'present Ihe Slate 1X' prohibited frolll
i1cti\'l'ly particip,lting ill till' tri.ll of Ihl' Defend.lllt; thallheir
participation be limitl'd 10 m('l"\' i1SSistillllC'i .1I1U thilllll('y bc'
prohibit('(1 from prl'SC'lllillg oral 'lrglllll('nt, Mguing 1Il0tiOIlS,
or eXilmining w itnessl's .11ld jurors.
As grollnds for this motion, Dl'fl'ndilnt sl.lles:
I. The Stall' is reprl'sentnl by
dul}'
electcd [<lppoinled J atlorney{s) who i1re a\'ail.lbk· alld
qualified to represenl the State;
2. Parlicipalion by ,1ltOrll(,YS oth('r th.lll til(' f('glll.u
pra'l('cuting :lttof!le}'(s) cou"l ~'rve 110 lIseful purp05(' but
woord onl}' hampl'r Ihl' l'xpediliOll'i di~po_~ilioll of thc C.HC
and unduly prolong Ihe procce\lingsi
3. PC'rlllitling priv.l!(' ilttOrllC'Y$ nnt fnnllilily appointl'd ilS
substitutC' prosC'clIting <lltornC'ys to il:>!iUIllC' <lci iVL' cont rol of
illlY part of thC' pros(~clltion oi th(' casC' if> contr<lry 10 T('xils
l~llles of CrimiTlill ProCl'dure, Mlicle 2.07;
4. IIf atlorn('}, priv,ltdy-emploYl'lll Pilflicipalion by il
privillely-l~mplo}'ed ilIIOrllC'}, in thC' tri'll of Dl'fendilnt
cn'ilil's rl conflkt of dilly bl'twel'll till' public prosecutor ilnd
Ih(' privilt(' illlol'lll'y inconsbt('nt with Tl'xas Ruk' of
Crimi nal Procedure, i1rtiC\(' 2.0 I <I lid the Cod(' of Prof('~ioll<ll
Hl"Spollsibility, Canon 7;
[Other groullds, which milY Lx> emphasized in elrgulllcnt,
including Ih(' bllrli(,1l 011 the trial courl of limiting thL' pri\'ate
illlornC'y's elctivity ilftL'r th(' triill hilS begun or th(l ilPllt'elr.lnc('
o! 1IllfeliTlll'sS of allowing "intermeddling" only by thos(' who
('illl ilHord 10 hire ,1ttornl'Ys,)
WHEREl~ORE, Ih(' Dcfl'ndant moves for illl order i1S
,lforl'menlionc(\ 10 l'IlSllrl' Ddelldillll'S rir,ht to duC' PTl>(,(,:;.s of
JilW OInd il fllir Irial by all impMtiill jury.
Respl'ct fully SlIblllilled,
If the trial results in il ('Olwictioo, pilrticilMlioll h}' iI priVilt('
iltlorney should be urg('d ilS error in thl' (\l'f('nsc molion for
new triill. [oinelll>', Ih(' point should hI' urt~ed on elppml.
Appell'lnt's motiol1 for rehl'aring il~ Ihe BallMd cas.~ is illl
C'xampl(' of ilil ar~ml('nt thilt could b(' IIs('d:
WITMEI{ JEAN IlALLARD, Appellilnt
v,
NO. 48,570
THE STATE OF TEXAS, ApJX'1I1'C'
MOTION FOR LEA VE TO FILE APPELLANT'S MOTION
FOR REHEARING
App('lIiHlt Wilm('I' kiln Billiard, through C0I1I1S(,1. und(,r
RIII(' VI, Rules of Court of Crilllinill AppC'als, respect fully
moves this COlITt for "'ilV(' to fill' thl' a II al'IlI'd Molion for
R('\wolTing of his APpC'ill, in which till' Court ilHinm.'tj by its
opinion Oil SC'plC'mb('r 18, 197<', a judgnwnt of con vict ion of
llIurdC'r lind il sentencl' to life imprisonl\\('nt. The Bround of
AppC'lIalll's Motion is thilt Ih(' origill<ll dl'cision WilS in error
I1nd Ihilt Ihl' qUl'stiolls in"olv(.''(1 should b(' r('considered in Ihl'
inlt'H>sts of subsliml iill justlc(, elild i>l'ClIUS(' t Ill'Y are of gl'lWTill
ill1POTtilllC'l' toth(' adminislratiOll of crilninJI jU::ili(e in Ihis
SliltC',
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Witnwr kiln Billiard, Ddendelnl-Appl'lIilnt, through
cOllnS<'I, rl'spectfuJly mov('s thl'CourllosC'1 aside th('opinioll
<tnd jl:dgrnl'nl OfS('vtl~ml"'r 18, 1974, ,llld togrelnl iI r('heMing
10 rl'consiti('( t1ll~ rlilings thai: (1) th(' privilll'ly cmployed
prosecnlor's p"rticipalion in thc trial did not amount to
control .lnd Jl1i1l1agl'nll'nt of th(' trial so liS 10 d('ny ilppellant il
(,lir tTiill; ,1Ild (2) thl' Court could not cOJ1sidpr Ihc qucstion of
ildmi~ibilily of the psychilltric It'slimonr on 111(' merits
!x>CilUS(' of till' absencl' of il sufficient I>, spC'cific OOjl,(, I ion.
AppE'lIilnl Mgued on ilppl'illthelt th(' priviltl,ly Tl'tain('d
clttorney took ovC'r control elnd nlilllil!J('nH>nt of the
prosl'cution of <1ppl'lIant contriHY 10 Tl'XilS lelw ilnd in
violiltioll of his I'ight 10" fJir tri.ll. As indictl'd in I Ill' CilSl'S
cited by Ih(' CO~lrt pl'T COlllmissioner Dillly, tll(' TL'XilS COllrl
of Criminill Appcllis IMS ilpproved thl' pracliCl' of il viclim's
family hiring an .lllorn('>' 10 I'Mlicipiltl' illlhC' pros(,Clllion,
but hilS r('cogni~l'd lhC'('vils inhC'll'llf in privilte pros('clilions
by limiti ng lh,' scop(' of proper cnmlocl of a pri Ville>
proSl'cutor to IllL'r(' ilssist.mce. In this C<15(>, how('vC'r, ttll'
public prosccutors were till' ilssi:>lillltS.TI1l' pri\'ilt(' prosccutor
took l1lor~ Iheln I1n IIclivl' PiHl--tW<lclllillly condut:\('d Ih('
trial. H(' dL'livC'r ... dlhl' opl'ning stiltl'nt('nt; .ugu('d motions,
conducllxi dir('ct l'x,lmil,.ltion of Siall' witnpss('s; cro~­
l'xamim>rl dC'f(,llse witm'sSL's; Illild(' iI closing ilTgunwllt;
Prt'p<llcd Ihe StalL"s bril'f on <lvpl'al; ilnd finally, d.,1 iwrc>rl
thl'OIal argunwill on appl'ill inlhisCourt himS('lf. This could
hnrdly bC' cilll('d nll'rl' assist<lnce, II W,lS his Glse, and Ill' IlllldC'
it dl'olT Ihroligholllllll' Iriillthat h(' Iho\l~ht it WilS his, Olll'
illustriltion ilppeClrs .It pagl' IX 1529 of the r('cord, WhN(' tl1l'
prival(' prost'Culor SlilH·s .. I a hL'.uing 011" motion in Iiminc:
"I h,wl' not r(l~l'ilrclH·dlhis milllf"r ,md I would nol at
Ihis lilll(, w.1nlto I'lkc iln)' position Olll' Wel}' or Ihl' olhN
until I havC' bril'!"" it. I will simply ilsk IIMt thL'Court
tilk\' Ihis mailer under advis('lll(,ll\. .. ." (Emphasis
ilddl,(t.)
The priviltp proseclltor's control of the C,lSC' l'vell W(,llt 10 Ih('
point of improper pilYllwnlllf willwss('s by him from i(lcs
paid to him by his ('Ill ploYl'r. To uphold Ilisilctivity in this
CilS(' would eHl~cli\'L'l)' make substitution of pri\'ilte (01' public
prosl'nllions propcI', il prdclicl' this Court has milclL' cll'iH it
doC's 110t approve.
II.
Th l, App('lIil'\t H'SPI'Cllully submit:> thilt the object ion:; to
USl~ by Ihl' private pro'l('cutor of the psy..:hialrist's lestillloll),
to impeach till' Dl'f('nd.lnt were aci('qual('l}, reli~l'd il1lh(' tri'll
COllrt, and ill allY GISC, should be considerl'd in light of Poillt
I. A g('nl'r,ll objl'Clioll has [)('('Il hdd slIificil'llt, when the
C'vidI'IlCl' Objl'Ctl'd 10 "W,lS 1101 adlllissibll' (or ilny purpos('."
Xanthull v. StatC', 358 S,W.2d 631 (Tex . Cr. App. 1962). 111 iln)'
l'vent, it is ulwious Irom 1I11' h(,MinS Oil Appt'llanl's mOl ion to
exdudl' tl,l' IC'SI i ilion), (H. X 3817·38) ilnd till' h"oHil1gon hi~
1Il0tioll for new triell thlltth(' trial COlll't a'lied on the
"illlp<'ildmwnt L'XCl'ptiOIl" of Harris v. New York that hM'
beC'n dl'ilI'ly rC'jl'cled by this Courl in Duller v. State, 493
S.W,2d 190 (Tl'x. Cr. App. 1(73), Fillillly, 1\0 cI,lilll \\',lS J1lildl'
b>' IhC' privillelr elHploYl'd prO'il'CIIIOr Oil ilppeal thill he did
nol kllow 011 WIM! hilSis the oblelliolls Wl'rl' nMd('. He k TIl'\\'
th'lt tl,,-, objl'ction WilS thilt Ih(' psychiilt rist's \(-:.t imon}'
conn'I'lling lkfl'ndll11 l's sl,ltl'lll('nls 10 him W.1S Il'il'dlo provl'
guill, in viulatioll of both his privill'ge ,lgilinst sl'lfincrimination <lnd the stiltutory privilege. n Ilil II}" in il C,lSl'
ill which iln iltl('asl colo.-abl(' claim of control by il priviltI'
prOSl'Clilor of il crimillill CilS(' is Illeldl', IIll'd"cisiollsof thi~
Courl woulll r('()uire iI consideration ot Ilw 'lu<'stioll whNIIl'T
th£' priV.lt(' prosecutor WilS ~uilly of misconduct thill
prl'judicl'd Ill(' rights of till' iKcus<,d.
THElWFORE, Appellant Tl'spl'Clfully SlIblllils I hat till'
opinion of October 18, 11)74, 1'(,lldl'Tl'd hy Comllli!>Sion('r
Dilily <tnd approvcd b}' thl' Court he \'elcolh'd nnd Sl't ilSid(',
and a r('hearillggr.lIlt('d.
McCtl.lng-Llllw'f8U HAndbook
P,,,,d;"I1-1971 ,ni,ion
'01
Toul
.. . ..... . . $211.00
McClung-Jury Chug I I fo, T,u, Crim . P'IlC, 1913 .. . .. . $26.00
Mo."uen" MOIIl-IN8AU, Scienlific E.,ido/lCo
in Crimi" .. 1 CIII,u-1973 .. '
... $t5.00
humor-C,imi"al T,iel SIrIlID9y--197I r.prin!
. $ 8.50
WCllJlh.rly-Sl.lccDuful Trial & AppDliala Work
in Aclion-1973
."0.00
JOHN R, MARA LAW BOOKS
51128 Richmond Avo., Oallllll, TOI. 75026
Ph. 2104-821-1979
7