People v. Fentress
New York County Court
425 N.Y.S.2d 485 (1980)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
Albert Fentress (defendant) and Wallace Schwartz, a lawyer, were family friends who met each other through Schwartz’s mother. One day, Fentress called Schwartz at home. Fentress told Schwartz that he had killed someone at his home and was going to commit suicide. Schwartz convinced Fentress to seek help, and Fentress told Schwartz to call Fentress’s rabbi. Also, although Schwartz did not say he would be Fentress’s lawyer, Schwarz told Fentress that it was his legal advice to also call the police. Fentress agreed. Schwartz then called his mother and told her what Fentress had done in order to get her help in locating the rabbi. Schwartz’s mother called Fentress and, without mentioning the conversation with her son, asked Fentress what happened. Fentress confessed to having killed someone. Schwartz’s mother told Fentress that she would call the police if Fentress did not. Fentress said that he would like his rabbi to be present when the police arrived. Schwartz’s mother called the police. When the police arrived and apprehended Fentress, Fentress said he would not speak without the presence of his attorney, Schwartz. After being indicted for murder, Fentress asked that the indictment be dismissed because it was the product of inadmissible evidence protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rosenblatt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
