The accused learned that the difficult path in the United States v. Krug.  In Krug, a written JDA was concluded by co-accused and their lawyers. After the agreement was implemented, the co-accused had a discussion on issues related to their case. The court found that the corridor discussions were not protected by the JDA and could be used as evidence against it during the trial. If left uncorrected, these differences can jeopardize all parties to the common defence agreement. An important provision of any common defence agreement is therefore to deal precisely with what happens when a party decides to denounce or abandon it. Concerned about a proper trial, the safety of the accused and the constitutional rights of the accused, the court ordered the defence counsel to submit his JDA proposal to the court for cameraman verification. The Tribunal found that, because of its supervisory powers, it has an essential power to oversee its own affairs to ensure that justice is served. In support of its explanatory statement, the Tribunal found that common defence relationships may exist between civil parties or co-accused in a civil or criminal context. A common defence may even extend to non-parties, such as defendants` insurers. To obtain the privilege of communicating with others, a party must generally show three things: that the communication ended in a common defence, that the communications were made to support the objectives of that common defence, and that the privilege was not nullified elsewhere (i.e. that the common defenders do not share communication beyond their small group).
The concepts and predicates of an applicable common interest agreement are, for the most part, similar to those of the common defence agreement. These include real common interests that are sufficient to justify a derogation from the rules for waiving solicitor-client privilege. Nevertheless, there is sufficient commonality for lawyers to maximize the chances of each court recognizing and effectively recognizing the privileges and immunities of common interest claimed. This is usually done through a formal written agreement. No good discussion about the JDAs begins without first discussing the doctrine of the common interest; A concept that breathes life into all JDAs. The teaching of the common interest (sometimes called the common privilege of the defence) is an extension of solicitor-client privilege. It allows parties who have a common interest in defeating a mutual legal opponent to freely share information without worrying about waiving solicitor-client privilege regarding their disclosure. Since an unspoken relationship between counsel and client is generally determined on the basis of the reasonable perspective of the potential client, a well-written common defence agreement can confirm that the parties accept that there was no solicitor-client relationship with co-parties for any purpose. For lawyers, this includes dealing with risks such as obligations to non-clients who are parties to the joint defence contract. It is recommended that any common defence agreement should include provisions that should not be used as a basis for attempting to disqualify another Council. Since the existence of common interests is not as obvious as in the context of the trial, it is particularly important that clients and lawyers document the origin, duration, foundation, limitations and end of a common interest agreement. Creation is important to enable the parties to determine precisely when the common interest began in the event of subsequent disputes.
From a strictly legal point of view, the common privilege of defence is a bad name, for it is not in fact a positive privilege; Rather, it is an exception to the exemption granted to the exemption.
- No categories