From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...
Minnesota v. Rhodes
Minnesota Supreme Court
627 N.W.2d 74 (2001)
Facts
Thomas Rhodes (defendant) was charged with murdering his wife, who disappeared overboard during a late-night outing on the couple’s boat. A woman testified that Rhodes began an extramarital affair with her the previous year but ended the relationship, claiming he wanted to work on his marriage. However, during approximately the same time frame, attorney C. Andrew Johnson met with Rhodes and his wife to discuss a possible divorce. After Johnson testified that his client was Rhodes alone, not both spouses, the trial judge found Rhodes and his wife were not joint clients. That meant Johnson could testify about the discussions he had with Rhodes when his wife was present, which would otherwise have been privileged. Johnson testified that he had calculated the amount of child support each spouse would have to pay the other if only one had custody of their two children and told Rhodes he would have to pay $650 or $742 of his $2,400 monthly income in child support. After that meeting, the couple never met with Johnson again and evidently did not pursue divorce. Rhodes was convicted of murder and appealed on multiple grounds, including that the court erroneously determined that he and his wife were not Johnson’s joint clients and allowed Johnson to violate attorney-client privilege.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blatz, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 556,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
