Legal Opinion
Morrow v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 9, 1994No. B085297PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, J
It has been said, and it is doubtless true, that the “. . . courtroom is a temple of justice.” (Featherstone v. United States (5th Cir. 1974) 491 F.2d 96, 97, fn. 1.) A prosecutor may not use the courtroom as a place to intentionally and surreptitiously listen to, i.e., eavesdrop upon, a defendant’s conversation with his attorney. Indeed, eavesdropping on an attorney-client conversation is inappropriate anywhere and cannot be tolerated.
“[T]he prosecutor is not only the defendant’s adversary, but is also the ‘. . . guardian of the defendant’s constitutional rights. . . .’…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Rochin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Berger v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- People v. AlexanderCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- People v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- People v. GuillenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- People v. SuarezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
- People v. UribeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.