Summary
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent enforcement of an order requiring disclosure of the petitioner’s psychological report to the court and State for sentencing. The majority held that judicial estoppel barred the petitioner from asserting attorney-client privilege and work-product protection after representing that the evaluation would assist the court in sentencing. Justice Benjamin dissented, arguing that judicial estoppel was inapplicable absent bad faith and that disclosure could undermine criminal defense advocacy.
Holdings
- Judicial estoppel may be invoked sua sponte when the record is sufficient to determine its application, and the doctrine may apply in criminal as well as civil proceedings.
- The petitioner was judicially estopped from asserting attorney-client privilege and work-product protection over the psychological report because she obtained a favorable ruling allowing disclosure of confidential information to the psychologist after representing that the psychological evaluation would be used by the court for sentencing, then changed position and refused to disclose the report.
- The writ of prohibition should be denied because the circuit court's disclosure order was not shown to be clearly erroneous as a matter of law under the applicable prohibition factors.
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court's order requiring disclosure of the petitioner's psychological report exceeded its legitimate powers so as to warrant a writ of prohibition.
- Whether attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine prevented disclosure of the psychological report after the petitioner represented that the evaluation would be used by the court for sentencing.
- Whether judicial estoppel may be invoked sua sponte and applied in a criminal proceeding to prevent the petitioner from asserting privilege and work-product protection after obtaining permission to disclose confidential information based on a representation that the resulting report would be provided to the court.
Disposition
writ_denied
Cases Cited (24)
- State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 645 n.1, 398 S.E.2d 123, 127 n.1 (1990)(followed)
- State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996)(followed)
- In re Berks Behavioral Health LLC, 500 B.R. 711, 721 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2013)(persuasive)
- Schering Corp. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., No. CIV.A. 09-6383 JLL, 2011 WL 3651343, at *8 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2011)(persuasive)
- Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 1990)(persuasive)
- Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 39, 591 S.E.2d 870, 895 (2004)(persuasive)
- Larry V. Faircloth Realty, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 230 W. Va. 482, 740 S.E.2d 77, 82 (2013)(followed)
- Beem v. McKune, 317 F.3d 1175, 1185 (10th Cir. 2003)(persuasive)
- United States v. Hoey, 34 F. App'x 290, 291 (9th Cir. 2002)(persuasive)
- State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 182, 920 P.2d 290, 304 (1996)(persuasive)
Showing top 10 of 24.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.