People v. Godlewski

Raymond Godlewski, Gene Flack, and Michael Brown (defendants) were charged with murdering Godlewski’s father by shooting him. The prosecution’s theory was that Godlewski had hired Flack to perform the killing and that Flack had brought Brown for the shooting. The three were tried in overlapping proceedings with two juries: one for Godlewski, the other for Flack and Brown. Each jury was excluded from some evidence. At trial, Godlewski confessed to hiring Flack, claiming he wanted to kill his abusive father. Flack testified he purchased a shotgun for Godlewski but said Godlewski pulled the trigger. Flack’s mother and grandmother each testified that after Flack’s arrest, (1) he called them and put a man named Ray on the phone, and (2) this individual admitted to the murder and promised to exonerate Flack. Flack sought to also present testimony from inmate Steve White, who claimed he overheard a conversation between Godlewski and his attorney in a lockup area. According to White, the attorney suggested Godlewski would be better off saying he did the killing instead of blaming others, and Godlewski replied he was going to say he did it, not the other guys. Godlewski argued that any private conversation with his attorney was protected by the attorney-client privilege, even if overheard accidentally. Flack offered to present the conversation evidence to only his and Brown’s jury, outside the hearing of Godlewski’s jury, but Godlewski refused to waive the privilege. Flack argued the testimony was necessary for a fair trial, especially because it arguably corroborated the testimony from his mother and grandmother about someone named Ray confessing. The trial court ruled the conversation was privileged and denied Flack’s request for White’s testimony. As a concession, the court barred the prosecution from arguing no evidence corroborated the testimony about someone named Ray confessing. Flack was convicted of first-degree murder. Flack appealed, arguing that excluding White’s testimony had denied Flack of his constitutional right to due process, i.e., a fair trial.