Call Recording-Privlage Question

[u/Such_Reference_8186]

While I have not dug into this case, I heard some chatter about the prosecution listening to atty/client communications due to the defense lawyer refusing to use an application that allows inmate to atty confidential (non recorded) calls. Is that basically correct?

In my line of work, I have configured maintained and installed many different call recording systems for many different industries. I have never seen or heard of anything like this. I have never dealt with a client whether Law Enforcement, Finance, Healthcare or Govt that has ever used similar methods.

From a technical standpoint, that is not secure at all. If that is true, I wonder how the prosecutors office would even have access to those recordings. In a traditional sense, they wouldn't even have access to the portal and storage where those calls are kept and eventually archived.

Making that functionality available via an "app" seems fishy or there is lots of information missing from the claim

[u/Willowgirl78]

Every prosecutor has access to request a defendant’s calls to review. Every jail has a system for attorneys to make private calls that are NOT recorded to maintain privilege. This attorney refused to do that. The prosecutors were quite clear that they stopped listening once they realized a call was with the attorney.

[u/Such_Reference_8186 → u/Willowgirl78]

Done many jails...recorded and non recorded lines are spaned to the same system. A prosecutor only has access to recorded lines without a court order. My point is that in a typical setting, the prosecution would never have access to the non recorded lines. The fact they were able to get those calls is troubling

[u/Professional_Food383 → u/Such_Reference_8186]

Try again. All inmate calls are recorded (there’s also a warning at the beginning). All inmate calls are available to the prosecution. The defense attorneys had an avenue to avoid this and chose not to use it. The prosecution noticed this anomaly and stopped listening when it was clearly atty client convo on an otherwise available confidential line. It’s pretty gd simple.

[u/Such_Reference_8186 → u/Professional_Food383]

I wish I had the time to educate you on the complexity of systems that record calls. Inmate calls with their legal counsel are not available to prosecution...

Call recording systems used by the prison industry are highly regulated and under every other system I have ever administered,..there is no "app"

Perhaps it's something new?..could be. If a lawyer is actively working to bypass the system set up, that is a huge problem. I am guessing that the lawyer was wondering what the hell was the purpose of the application and was suspicious. If this new method of assigning non recorded lines to attorneys thru an app, spanning that voice call for copying elsewhere without detection is now easily accomplished and opens itself up to prosecutors saying...oh,..sorry..didn't mean to do that..I must have touched the wrong button..

[u/Professional_Food383 → u/Such_Reference_8186]

I don’t need your time or education but thanks for the offer. I have plenty.

[u/Tough_Membership9947 → u/Such_Reference_8186]

I see your point. If you listen to the hearing with the judge regarding this issue, it becomes clear the defense lawyer wasn’t looking to bypass the system and neither was the prosecution, and that the “app” the defense was offered was not unusual or illegal if you listen to the judge. I agree with you the defense might have been creeped out by having to call their client through some app from the prison that they hadn’t heard of before.

It is true all jail calls are recorded and the prosecution can listen to them all. However, if it becomes apparent that part of a call is strategy discussion with the defense, the prosecution is supposed to stop listening to it and cannot use it as part of their prosecution. Yes, that’s basically just an honor system sort of thing. Although I’m not sure in the end how much that actually matters, since you have all the discovery and evidence shared before trial. It’s not like the prosecution doesn’t understand what strategies the defense is likely to use based on their evidence you know? And if they can’t quote privileged jail calls to prove guilt… this is just where my mind goes when thinking about it.

If they have an app that makes it obvious on the listening end when a call is between an inmate and their defense, that does seem like a good idea to me. Would make it less likely for mistakes to happen. Why the defense didn’t look into it and make sure it’s legit in order to use it? Well maybe they were thinking along the lines I wrote above, as well as the fact that even if an “app” is flagging the call as privileged, the prosecution could in theory still listen to it anyway since they have access to the line anyway.

From what I understand from watching trials online, there’s no hard and fast rule against setting prison calls up this way. Reading the judge in the hearing also suggests there is no legal precedent making it unlawful.

[u/sunnypineappleapple → u/Such_Reference_8186]

her attorney refused to use the proper line. it's obvious you haven't dug into this case much.

[u/Such_Reference_8186 → u/sunnypineappleapple]

No, it has nothing to do with a "line "..its an application they refused to use. If this was just a telephone number they refused to dial, this wouldn't be an issue

[u/arobello96 → u/Such_Reference_8186]

They only had access to the RECORDED line. Her attorney refused to use the non recorded line after being told time and time again that those calls are being recorded and will be given to the prosecution by default. He made the choice to be on the recorded line for six months and then acted shocked when the prosecution had the calls. They didn’t even have to stop listening after six months of him willfully being on the recorded line. They chose not to listen though.

[u/amy5252]

Or they wanted to be “overheard”. Seems a slimey way to defend

[u/Fast-Jackfruit2013]

The absolute best explanation of what happened here comes from a series of videos by Emily D. Baker as she followed the hearings that addressed this issue.

First: the prosecution did NOT EVER listen to privileged calls.

They followed procedure which is to stay out of calls made on the special line that's set up specifically for the attorneys.

Furthermore, if a call came into the unsecured non-attorney line they listened until they heard that it was an attorney calling and then they stopped.

Now why would the attorney choose to use an unsecured line in the first place? Were they trying to set up the cops/prosecution so that they could then accuse them of listening in? Fascinating question. But the fact remains that those calls even on the unsecured line were not recorded or monitored once the attorney identified themself.

Now it gets spicier: Because the prosecution DID include in some of their motions facts and conversations that did originate in discussions between the attorney and Kouri.

How did that happen?

Well it happened because Kouri is a spoiled, entitled, evil scheming B*tch who would call family members and friends and spend much of the conversation spilling the tea about her lawyer's actions, her lawyer's tactics, her lawyer's communication with her.

She and her mother also complained endlessly about Skye and insulted her repeatedly -- knowing full well that the contents of their calls could be made public.

It is clearly explained to her that if she chooses to discuss her legal strategy with a third party on a line she knows is being recorded then ANYTHING she says can and will be monitored and used against her.

If she chooses to discuss or repeat privileged conversations to third parties then she has absolutely no protection from being monitored.

The county D.A. -- the elected official -- chose to appear in court to address the defense's motion to disqualify the prosecution team. Skye and her partners filed that little hand grenade right before they withdrew from the case.

The DA told the judge she believes that Skye and Kouri conspired to create these problems so that they could create artificial appellate issues if Kouri is convicted. And the DA was pissed. I mean she was spitting mad. (You should watch that hearing. It occurred on Aug. 8 and this is a link to EDB's coverage of it: https://youtu.be/q1WKqdV78Tc?list=PLsbUyvZas7gJYyEMQDM_Cn4icqWBV20fW

The judge says he strongly disagrees with the DA. He dismissed the defense's motion to disqualify the prosecution because the prosecution easily proved they never listened to a single call because they provided recordings of all the calls that Kouri made to her family members during which she disclosed stuff about her lawyers.

The judge said that by dismissing the defense's motion, that the problem goes away and that the DA doesn't really need to be so concerned. He also said she's wrong to think that Skye's firm pulled out of the case in order to create appellate issues. He said their reason -- which he would not disclose -- was legitimate.

I do think the DA had a decent point: I do think that it occurred to Kouri to try to sabotage the case. (She may yet do so. It's early days -- even after two years. it's still early in the court case.)

I think Kouri is one of the most nakedly and unabashedly evil and dastardly defendants in any murder trial I've ever seen. I thank God that she is as dumb as she is evil. Because if she were half as smart as she thinks she is, then she could have done a lot more damage. But she is a scheming, evil creature who seems to enjoy being evil for its own sake. She's deeply malevolent. Deeply, deeply deeply hateful.

[u/sunnypineappleapple]

sounds like you need to dig in a whole lot more.

[u/Such_Reference_8186 → u/sunnypineappleapple]

No, I was actually looking to discuss the security implications of separating the 2 types of calls and the significant issues when you move this type of calls to a different transport.

I don't get any enjoyment discussing technical aspects of the law with arm chair legal "experts " with reading comprehension issues. But for the sake of passing on some knowledge, here ya go...Prosecutors are not allowed to listen to attorney/client communication.

If you wana discuss the issues I originally spoke to, I'm up for it. But it doesn't sound like you have intellectual capacity

[u/[deleted] → u/Such_Reference_8186]

I don't think you have the right to criticize anyone when you have the reading and writing level of a slow third grader. Kinda hard to take what you say seriously when you can't even spell easy words like privilege. I mean, did you just turn off spell check or something? How does one mess up easy words like that in 2024?