Com. v. Curley, T. , 131 A.3d 994 ( 2016 )

J-A22010-15
2016 Pa. Super. 13
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TIMOTHY M. CURLEY,
Appellant No. 299 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 14, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-22-CR-0003614-2013
CP-22-CR-0005165-2011
BEFORE: BOWES, JENKINS, AND PLATT,* JJ.
OPINION BY BOWES, J.: FILED JANUARY 22, 2016
Timothy M. Curley appeals from the order denying his pre-trial
motions to preclude the introduction of testimony of Attorney Cynthia
Baldwin1 and quash certain criminal charges against him based on violations
of the attorney-client privilege.2 We reverse the trial court’s order in which
____________________________________________
1
Ms. Baldwin is a former Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Consistent with the parties and trial court below, and to avoid confusion, we
have not referred to her as Justice Baldwin since she was not acting in a
judicial capacity.
2
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to the collateral order
doctrine codified at Pa.R.A.P. 313. See Commonwealth v. Schultz, __
A.3d __ (Pa.Super. 2015).
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A22010-15
it found that no attorney client privilege existed. For the reasons that follow,
we hold that Ms. Baldwin was incompetent to testify as to Curley’s
communications with her. Accordingly, we quash the count of obstruction of
justice and the related conspiracy charge.
In these actions, the Commonwealth has charged Curley with two
counts of endangering the welfare of a child (“EWOC”), and one count each
of perjury, failure to report suspected child abuse, obstruction of justice, and
conspiracy.3 The charges stem from: 1) his treatment of allegations of
sexual misconduct against Gerald “Jerry” A. Sandusky, the former defensive
coordinator for the Penn State football team, and founder of a non-profit
charity serving underprivileged youth, the Second Mile; and 2) his testimony
pertaining to his handling of those matters before an investigating grand
jury.4
Curley is the former Athletic Director of the Pennsylvania State
University (“Penn State” or “University”). In 2009, the Pennsylvania Office
of Attorney General (“OAG”) began investigating allegations that Sandusky
____________________________________________
3
The Commonwealth filed a single conspiracy count, which included
conspiracy to commit perjury, obstruction of justice, and endangering the
welfare of a child.
4
Our recitation of the facts is based on the certified record, including the
grand jury presentments, unsealed testimony, and the factual findings of the
trial court. Insofar as Appellant’s testimony was not credited by the trial
court, we have not relied on that version of events. However, where the
testimony was not in dispute, we have considered it.
-2-
J-A22010-15
sexually abused children over an extended period. As part of the
investigation, the OAG convened a statewide investigating Grand Jury.
During the course of the investigation, the OAG learned of sexual
misconduct by Sandusky that occurred while he was on the campus of Penn
State in 2001, as well as an incident involving inappropriate behavior with a
minor in 1998.
The grand jury investigation revealed the following regarding the 1998
matter. That incident involved an eleven-year-old boy. See Thirty-Third
Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Sandusky Presentment, at 18
(hereinafter Sandusky Presentment); see also Thirty Third Investigating
Grand Jury Presentment No. 29. Sandusky transported the victim from the
victim’s home to Penn State. Sandusky Presentment at 18. On the way to
the University, Sandusky placed his right hand on the boy’s thigh on multiple
occasions. Id. The pair lifted weights for approximately twenty minutes
before playing a game with a tape ball and cups. Id. Sandusky then
wrestled with the victim, before instructing the boy to shower. Id. The
youngster attempted to shower away from Sandusky, but Sandusky
beckoned him closer and told him that he warmed up a shower for the child.
Id. at 18-19. Sandusky grabbed the boy from around his waist, lifting him
into the air. Id. at 19. He also washed the boy’s back and bear hugged the
child from behind, before rinsing the child’s hair. Id.
-3-
J-A22010-15
When Sandusky returned the child to the boy’s home, the child’s
mother noticed that his hair was wet and became upset when she discovered
that he had showered with Sandusky. Id. She reported the matter to
University Police, who initiated an investigation. Id. University Police
conducted a wiretap on Sandusky, with the permission of the boy’s mother,
recording two conversations. Id. Sandusky admitted to showering naked
with the child, and at one point stated that he wished he were dead. Id. at
20. He also told police that he hugged the child in the shower and admitted
that it was wrong. Id. No charges were ultimately filed.
The grand jury investigation also revealed that in 2001, former Penn
State assistant football coach, Michael McQueary, who had been a
quarterback at Penn State, witnessed Sandusky commit a sexual assault
against a minor victim in a locker room shower on the main campus of the
University in February of 2001. Id. at 6. McQueary, then a graduate
assistant, reported this incident to head football coach Joe Paterno the next
day, a Saturday. Id. at 7. Paterno, in turn, reported the matter to Curley
the following day. Id. Within two weeks of the shower incident, McQueary
met with Curley and Gary Schultz, the Vice President for Finance and
Business. Id. McQueary, who testified before the grand jury prior to
January 12, 2011, stated that he told the pair that he believed he saw
Sandusky having anal sex with a minor boy. Id.
-4-
J-A22010-15
Curley was originally subpoenaed in December of 2010 to testify
before the investigating grand jury on January 12, 2011. Ms. Baldwin
alerted Curley to the subpoena on December 29, 2010, while Curley and she
were in Tampa, Florida for a Penn State football bowl game. 5 The pair
subsequently met, on January 3, 2011, after returning to State College, for
purposes of preparing Curley for his grand jury appearance. She agreed to
advise and be present for Curley’s grand jury testimony. Specifically, Ms.
Baldwin related to Curley that, as a grand jury witness, he was entitled to an
attorney who could attend and consult with him during his testimony. She
explained that he was free to retain a different attorney, but she could also
represent him at the proceeding as well.
According to Ms. Baldwin, she instructed Curley that she was general
counsel for Penn State and that any information he told her was not
confidential because she was the University’s attorney and could relate the
information to the Board of Trustees. Specifically, Ms. Baldwin set forth, “I
explained to him that I could go in [to the grand jury room], but I was
general counsel for Penn State, that there was no confidentiality. And I
emphasized that there was no confidentiality.[.]” N.T. Curley Hearing,
____________________________________________
5
Ms. Baldwin was also served a subpoena duces tecum, Grand Jury
Subpoena 1179, for University documents, which sought documents
referencing or related to Jerry Sandusky.
-5-
J-A22010-15
11/20/14, at 93. She continued, “there was no confidentiality between Mr.
Curley and me because I was the university’s attorney. So what he told me
wasn’t going to be confidential….I mean, if the board asked, I would tell
them.” Id. at 93-94. Nevertheless, Ms. Baldwin did not relate this
information to the Board of Trustees. Further, Ms. Baldwin did not advise
Curley regarding his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Ms.
Baldwin also did not carefully elucidate the difference between representing
Curley in his individual capacity or as an agent of his employer, Penn State.
On the same morning of his scheduled grand jury appearance, agents
from the OAG interviewed Curley. Ms. Baldwin was present for that
interview. She also attended the OAG interview of Schultz that same day.
Following these interviews, but before Curley testified, Ms. Baldwin asked
Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach if Curley and Schultz were targets
of the criminal investigation. The prosecutor informed her that they were
not targets at that time.6
____________________________________________
6
Despite this representation, the OAG was aware that McQueary had told
investigators that he reported a sodomy to Schultz and Curley, and it knew
that there had not been a follow-up police investigation. Thus, at that time,
the OAG presumably had a basis upon which to charge Curley with failure to
report suspected child abuse. Hence, the claim was misleading. Moreover,
Ms. Baldwin would have been aware that Curley’s and Schultz’s recollection
of what McQueary told them was inconsistent since she was present for their
pre-testimony interviews. Specifically, Schultz acknowledged that the
behavior that was reported was sexual in nature, but Curley denied that
there was any indication of sexual misconduct. The OAG, outside the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6-
J-A22010-15
Prior to Curley’s testimony, the Grand Jury Supervising Judge, Judge
Barry Feudale, queried Ms. Baldwin regarding her representation of Schultz
and Curley in chambers in their presence. Specifically, the following
exchange occurred:
OAG: Judge, we’re here on Notice 29. We have some witnesses
to be sworn, Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz.
Judge Feudale: Represented by?
Ms. Baldwin: My name is Cynthia Baldwin, general counsel for
Pennsylvania State University.
Judge Feudale: Will you be providing representation for both of
those identified witnesses?
Ms. Baldwin: Gary is retired but was employed by the university
and Tim is still an employee.
Notes of Grand Jury Colloquy, 1/12/11, at 7-8. Ms. Baldwin did not
expressly state that she represented Curley solely in an agency capacity, nor
did she indicate that she did not represent him in his individual capacity.
The OAG did not express concern on the record over a potential conflict of
interest based on Ms. Baldwin appearing with both Curley and Schultz.
Judge Feudale, without requesting further clarification from Ms. Baldwin,
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
presence of Ms. Baldwin, later explicitly told the grand jury supervising
judge that Schultz’s and Curley’s testimony was not consistent. N.T.,
4/13/11, at 10.
-7-
J-A22010-15
then advised the two men of their rights as grand jury witnesses. In
relevant part, he set forth:
As witnesses before the Grand Jury, you’re entitled to
certain rights and subject to certain duties which I am now going
to explain to you. All of these rights and duties are equally
important and it’s important that you fully understand each of
them.
First, you have the right to the advice and assistance of a
lawyer. This means you have the right to the services of a
lawyer with whom you may consult concerning all matters
pertaining to your appearance before the Grand Jury.
You may confer with your lawyer at any time before,
during and after your testimony. You may consult with your
lawyer throughout your entire contact with the Grand Jury. Your
lawyer may be present with you in the Grand Jury room during
the time you’re actually testifying and you may confer with
her at that time.
You also may at any time discuss your testimony with your
lawyer and except for cause shown before this Court, you may
disclose your testimony to whomever you choose, if you choose.
You also have the right to refuse to answer any question pending
a ruling by the Court directing you to respond if you honestly
believe there are proper legal grounds for your refusal. In
particular, you have the right to refuse to answer any question
which you honestly believe may tend to incriminate you.
Should you refuse to answer any question, you may offer a
reason for your refusal, but you’re not obliged to do so. If you
answer some questions or begin to answer any particular
question, that does not necessarily mean you must continue to
answer your questions or even complete the answers you have
started.
Now, any answers you give to any question can and may
be used against you either for the purpose of a Grand Jury
Presentment, Grand Jury Report or a Criminal Information.
-8-
J-A22010-15
In other words, if you’re uncertain as to whether you may
lawfully refuse to answer any question or if any other problem
arises during the course of your appearance before the Grand
Jury, you may stop the questioning and appear before me, either
alone or in this case with your counsel, and I will rule on that
matter whatever it may be.
Id. at 8-10 (emphases added).7
Curley entered the courtroom with Ms. Baldwin, who was seated
beside him during his testimony. At the outset, a deputy attorney general
asked Curley, “You have counsel with you?” N.T., Grand Jury Proceeding,
Notice No. 20, 1/12/11, at 3. Curley answered, “Yes, I do.” Id. The
prosecutor then asked, “Would you introduce her, please?” Id. Curley
responded, “My counsel is Cynthia Baldwin.” Id. Ms. Baldwin did not
indicate at that time that she represented Curley solely in an agency
____________________________________________
7
Judge Feudale, in an opinion addressing motions filed by Curley, seeking
quashal of the grand jury presentments, opined in dicta, “In hindsight,
perhaps I erred in not asking follow up question about the role of corporate
counsel Baldwin. I regret and perhaps committed error in not asking any
follow up questions but while I am unware of what the response would have
been, I fail to discern how such would persuade me at this stage why [the]
presentments should be dismissed.” Judge Feudale Opinion, 4/9/13, at 11.
Ultimately, Judge Feudale ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to consider the
motions in question. We agree with Judge Feudale, to the limited extent
that he erred in neglecting to properly probe the scope of Ms. Baldwin’s
representation to ensure that Curley understood whether Ms. Baldwin was
acting to protect his interests or the University’s.
-9-
J-A22010-15
capacity or that she was not representing him in a personal capacity. The
Commonwealth questioned Curley about the 1998 and 2001 incidents.8
The Commonwealth initially questioned Curley about the 2001 crime.
Curley testified that Paterno contacted him and Schultz and advised them
that he needed to meet with them regarding an incident reported to him by
graduate assistant football coach Michael McQueary. Id. at 4-5. Paterno
later met with Curley and Schultz. According to Curley, Paterno informed
them that McQueary witnessed Sandusky in the shower area with a child and
was uncomfortable with the activity occurring therein. Id. at 5. Curley
relayed that he and Schultz met with McQueary. Id. In Curley’s
recollection, McQueary related that Sandusky was horsing around in the
shower area and that it felt inappropriate. Id. at 7. Curley adamantly
denied that McQueary informed them that anal intercourse transpired
between Sandusky and the child. Id.
Curley stated that he reported the matter to University President, Dr.
Graham Spanier, and contacted Sandusky. He submitted that he also
reported the incident to Dr. Jack Raykovitz, then-executive director of the
Second Mile, after consulting with Spanier. Id. at 6. Curley further
instructed Sandusky to refrain from bringing young people into the athletic
____________________________________________
8
At the time, the Commonwealth referred to the 2001 shower crime as
occurring in 2002.
- 10 -
J-A22010-15
facilities at Penn State. Id. at 10-11. He did not inform campus police of
the incident and indicated that he did not think that what had been reported
to him was a crime. Id. at 12. Curley acknowledged that there was no
follow up investigation into the 2001 report by McQueary. Id. at 13. He
also denied having any knowledge of a 1998 report of another shower
incident involving Sandusky and a child. Id. at 13-14. He maintained that
the 1998 matter and subsequent police investigation were not brought to his
attention. Id. at 15. Later-discovered email documents revealed that
Curley was aware of the 1998 incident.
The investigating grand jury recommended that Curley be charged
with perjury and failure to report on November 7, 2011. The
Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint against Curley.9 Curley retained
new counsel and notified Ms. Baldwin, who had retained her own attorney,
via letter that Curley did not waive any claim of attorney-client privilege with
respect to communications between Ms. Baldwin and him.
Meanwhile, the OAG, in December of 2011, expressed significant
frustration with Ms. Baldwin’s failure to comply with its document subpoena
request and threatened the University and ostensibly her with possible
contempt of court “and any other appropriate measures applicable to
____________________________________________
9
The crimes were held for court and the Commonwealth filed a criminal
information on January 19, 2012.
- 11 -
J-A22010-15
obstruction against the institution and those individuals responsible for these
decisions.” Letter from OAG to Ms. Baldwin, 12/19/11, at 10.10
____________________________________________
10
Although the University was charged with complying with that subpoena
in December 2010, it was not until April 2012 that relevant documents were
turned over. Notably, although Ms. Baldwin informed University President,
Dr. Graham Spanier, of the subpoena and asked if he, Schultz, and Curley
had any documents, she apparently did not follow University protocol in
ensuring compliance with that subpoena. A grand jury report observed that
an “investigation into whether the University fully complied with the
subpoena determined that no effort was made to search the Athletic
Department, where Sandusky had been employed for over 30 years, or to
search any of the electronically stored data at the University or emails or
other documents[.]” Grand Jury Presentment No. 29, at 23. The Grand Jury
further concluded,
Penn State had in place a well-defined historical practice and
procedure for responding to subpoenas. Subpoenas that might
encompass electronically stored data (such as emails and
documents stored on a computer or network drive) would
routinely be sent to the specialized unit called the “SOS.” These
information technology professionals were trained and dedicated
to assembling responsive electronically stored date in response
to litigation needs or other legal process. None of the SOS
professionals were ever shown subpoena 1179, nor were they
directed to seek any information requested by subpoena 1179
before the arrests of Sandusky, Schultz and Curley.
Id.
Ms. Baldwin did assert in her grand jury testimony that she was
dependent on the Athletic Department, the President’s office, and Vice
President’s office to comply with the subpoena. Ms. Baldwin also informed
the supervising grand jury judge in April of 2011 that she “had the IT
people—I’ve been pushing the IT people and I believe that we can cull those
[documents] out for you, that we can do all of those.” N.T., 4/13/11, at 27.
However, the grand jury report reveals that, in addition to the SOS unit,
other individuals employed in the Penn State information technology
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 12 -
J-A22010-15
Subsequently, the Commonwealth and Ms. Baldwin entered into discussions
about her testifying before the grand jury regarding the responses of Curley,
Schultz, and Spanier pertaining to her document requests related to
Sandusky. See N.T., Grand Jury Conference, 10/22/12, at 2 (“the Office of
Attorney General has been conversing with Cynthia Baldwin’s counsel and
eventually Cynthia Baldwin in the context of a proffer discussion.”).
On June 22, 2012, Ms. Baldwin, through counsel, responded to
Curley’s invocation of the attorney-client privilege. She asserted that she
was counsel for Penn State, that she had acted solely in an agency capacity
in representing Curley, and that she did not represent him in an individual
capacity before the grand jury. In correspondence, Curley again invoked his
attorney-client privilege to Judge Feudale and Ms. Baldwin, and copied the
letter to the OAG and counsel for Penn State.
New general counsel for Penn State, Michael Mustokoff, asked Judge
Feudale for a conference concerning the privilege issues prior to Ms. Baldwin
testifying before the grand jury on October 22, 2012. Mr. Mustokoff agreed
that Penn State waived the privilege for itself, but explicitly declined to
waive the University’s privilege as to communications between Ms. Baldwin
and Schultz and Curley. Specifically, Mr. Mustokoff wrote,
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
department maintained that they were not asked to locate such documents.
Grand Jury Presentment No. 29, at 23-24.
- 13 -
J-A22010-15
We have waived the University’s privilege as to those documents
with two critical exceptions:
...
(2) any communications between Justice Baldwin and Messrs.
Schultz and Curely. We have previously shared our concerns
about the Schultz/Curley communications with you and
memorialized them in our October 2, 2012 letter to Judge
Feudale.
Letter from Michael Mustokoff to Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina,
10/19/12, at 1.
In preparation for Ms. Baldwin’s grand jury appearance, Judge Feudale
conducted a conference with Mr. Mustokoff, the OAG, and Ms. Baldwin’s
attorney on October 22, 2012. Curley’s attorney was not permitted to
attend. Counsel for Penn State astutely noted that it could not waive any
privilege that Curley might have and again declined to waive its privilege as
to communications between Ms. Baldwin and Curley. The OAG, via Attorney
Frank Fina, submitted at that time that it would not question Ms. Baldwin
about matters that could involve potential confidential communications
between Curley and Ms. Baldwin. Attorney Fina expressly set forth,
But at this point, Your Honor, we are willing to put Miss Baldwin
in the grand jury without addressing any of the issues related to
the testimony of Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley and conversations
she had with them about that testimony and put that—put those
matters on hold until we get a Court determination regarding the
privilege and we can address that later on.
- 14 -
J-A22010-15
N.T., Grand Jury Conference, 10/22/15, at 6.11 Shortly thereafter, Attorney
Fina declared, “There may well be [privilege] claims down the road by
[counsel for Schultz and Curley], and perhaps even counsel for Graham
Spanier; but that is, you know, the risk that the Commonwealth is ready to
bear because we believe that we are soundly within the [University] waiver.”
Id. at 11.
Judge Feudale, relying on the representations of Attorney Fina, stated,
I’m satisfied based on what you placed on the record that [Ms.
Baldwin] is clearly able to proceed on testimony with the
stipulation that you communicated that you’re not going to get
into an inquiry as to her representation and what that meant
with regard to Mr. Curley, Mr. Schultz, and perhaps, as you said,
also Mr. Spanier.
Id. at 11-12.12
____________________________________________
11
Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 3.10 precludes a prosecutor from subpoenaing an
attorney to appear before a grand jury where the prosecutor is seeking to
compel the attorney to provide evidence regarding a person who is or has
been represented by the attorney. The rule reads in its entirety,
A public prosecutor or other governmental lawyer shall not,
without prior judicial approval, subpoena an attorney to appear
before a grand jury or other tribunal investigating criminal
activity in circumstances where the prosecutor or other
governmental lawyer seeks to compel the attorney/witness to
provide evidence concerning a person who is or has been
represented by the attorney/witness.
Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 3.10.
12
The Commonwealth did not raise any argument that Ms. Baldwin could
testify regarding any privileged communications as a result of the crime-
fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. See In re Investigating
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 15 -
J-A22010-15
Despite the foregoing representations by Mr. Fina, a number of the
Commonwealth’s questions to Ms. Baldwin before the grand jury implicated
confidential communications.13 According to Ms. Baldwin’s grand jury
testimony, Curley told her prior to his testimony that he did not have any
documents relating to the 1998 and 2001 Sandusky matters. The
Commonwealth specifically inquired of Ms. Baldwin,
OAG: Again, staying with Mr. Curley, did he get back to you at
any point and tell you whether or not he had evidence or
materials that would be responsive to the Subpoena 1179?
Ms. Baldwin: Right. Yes.
OAG: What did he say?
Ms. Baldwin: No, he didn’t have any materials.
OAG: And your conversations with those three
gentlemen: Schultz, Spanier, and Curley, were specific
correct? They involved e-mails, paper files, any information—
Ms. Baldwin: Anything that could—any document—documents
that they had whether they be electronic or nonelectronic.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Grand Jury of Philadelphia County, 593 A.2d 402, 406-407 (Pa. 1991)
(crime-fraud exception excludes from protection those communications
between an attorney and client that are made for the purpose of committing
a crime or fraud).
13
In light of Attorney Fina’s representation to Judge Feudale, and mindful of
Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 3.10, we find his subsequent questioning of Ms. Baldwin,
absent prior judicial approval on the privilege question, to be highly
improper.
- 16 -
J-A22010-15
OAG: Is it fair to say they assured you they would go through
their e-mails and talk to their staff and find anything that was
responsive?
Ms. Baldwin: They said they would check and get back to me.
OAG: So Mr. Curley gets back to you and says there is nothing?
Ms. Baldwin: Correct.
N.T., 10/26/12, at 17-18 (emphasis added). These inquiries related to
compliance with the subpoena duces tecum and directly incriminated Curley
in the commission of the crime of obstruction of justice.
Following Ms. Baldwin’s testimony, that same day, in a second
presentment, the grand jury recommended additional charges against Curley
for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice,
conspiracy to commit perjury, and conspiracy to commit EWOC. The
Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint on November 1, 2012, alleging
that Curley committed the crimes of EWOC, obstruction of justice, and
conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit perjury,
and conspiracy to commit EWOC. It also consolidated Curley’s case with
prosecutions against Schultz and Spanier.
Preliminary hearings for Curley, Schultz and Spanier were held on July
29, 2013 and July 30, 2013. Ms. Baldwin did not testify. The magisterial
district court determined that a prima facie case existed against Curley and
the cases proceeded to the court of common pleas. Curley filed pre-trial
motions to preclude Ms. Baldwin’s testimony due to a breach of the
- 17 -
J-A22010-15
attorney-client privilege, to quash the grand jury presentment, and to
suppress his own grand jury testimony and dismiss those charges that arose
out of that testimony based on a lack of adequate counsel.
The court conducted a hearing on December 17, 2013. In support of
his pre-trial motions, Curley also sought to call Mr. Fina, Ms. Baldwin, and
expert witnesses to testify regarding Ms. Baldwin’s deficient representation.
The court precluded those witnesses from testifying. After receipt of
memoranda from the parties, the court scheduled additional hearings on
November 20-21, 2014, to consider testimony regarding the scope of the
alleged attorney-client privilege between Ms. Baldwin and Schultz, Curley,
and Spanier. The court precluded testimony from all witnesses except Ms.
Baldwin and the three defendants. It also prevented Curley and his counsel
from being present during the testimony of his co-defendants. Ms. Baldwin,
however, was present for the testimony of all three men and testified after
each of them.
Thereafter, in an order entered on January 14, 2015, the trial court
concluded that Curley was not denied counsel during his grand jury
testimony on January 12, 2011, because Ms. Baldwin represented him as an
agent of Penn State. It further held that Ms. Baldwin did not represent
Curley in an individual capacity and that her subsequent testimony did not
violate the attorney-client privilege because there was no privilege. Curley
then filed this interlocutory appeal, raising three issues for our review.
- 18 -
J-A22010-15
I. Where the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Act guarantees all
witnesses the right to assistance of counsel and where
appellant did not waive his right to counsel, did the
attorney-client privilege personally attach when he was
represented by employer’s general counsel and
subpoenaed to give testimonial evidence before the grand
jury?
II. Whether, in this case, the applicable legal standard to
establish the existence of the individual attorney-client
privilege is controlled by this Court’s opinion in
Commonwealth v. Mrozek[,657 A.2d 997 (Pa.Super.
1995),] and the grand jury context in which the
representation arose?
III. Whether appellant’s counsel violated attorney-client
privilege when she testified at the grand jury regarding
their private communication without first obtaining his
waiver of privilege?
Appellant’s brief at 5.
In the companion case of Commonwealth v. Schultz, __ A.3d __
(Pa.Super. 2015), decided today, we outlined the basis of our jurisdiction to
consider an interlocutory appeal regarding issues pertaining to the attorney-
client privilege. For reasons outlined therein, Appellant’s contentions
relative to the attorney-client privilege are properly before this Court.14
____________________________________________
14
Unlike the appellant in Schultz, Curley does not seek to quash his
perjury charge that arose from his grand jury testimony based on a denial of
counsel during that testimony. Curley did originally seek to address that
issue by filing with the trial court a motion to certify its order under 42
Pa.C.S. § 702(b), to allow an interlocutory appeal by permission. The trial
court denied that motion. Curley, subsequent to the filing of this appeal,
petitioned this Court for review under Pa.R.A.P. 1311, however, the Court
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 19 -
J-A22010-15
In Schultz, supra, we also set forth the general principles of law
governing the attorney-client privilege as follows.
An issue concerning whether a communication is protected
by the attorney-client privilege presents a question of law. In re
Thirty-Third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, supra at
215. Hence, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of
review is plenary. Id. “Although now embodied in statute, the
attorney-client privilege is deeply rooted in the common law.
Indeed, it is the most revered of the common law privileges.”
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 738 A.2d 406, 414 (Pa. 1999)
(internal citations omitted). In a criminal matter, “counsel shall
not be competent or permitted to testify to confidential
communications made to him by his client, nor shall the client be
compelled to disclose the same, unless in either case this
privilege is waived upon the trial by the client.” 42 Pa.C.S. §
5916.
This Court has opined, “Where legal advice of any kind is
sought from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such
the communications relating to the purpose made in confidence
by the client are at this instance permanently protected from
disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser except the
protection may be waived.” In re Gartley, 491 A.2d 851,
858 (Pa.Super. 1985) (quoting 8 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2292 at
554 (McNaughton rev. 1961)). Almost a century ago, our
Supreme Court posited,
the circle of protection is not so narrow as to exclude
communications, a professional person may deem
unimportant to the controversy, or the briefest and
lightest talk the client may choose to indulge with his
legal adviser, provided he regards him as such at
the moment. To found a distinction on such a
ground, would be to measure the safety of the
confiding party by the extent of his intelligence and
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
denied that petition without prejudice to Curley to pursue that issue in this
appeal. He did not seek relief on that basis. See footnote 14, infra at 23.
- 20 -
J-A22010-15
knowledge, and to expose to betrayal these very
anxieties which prompt those in difficulty to seek the
ear of him in whom they trust, in season and out of
season. The general rule is[] that all professional
communications are sacred.
Alexander v. Queen, 253 Pa. 195, 203 (Pa. 1916). More
recently, our Supreme Court declared,
The purposes and necessities of the relation between
a client and his attorney require, in many cases, on
the part of the client, the fullest and freest disclosure
to the attorney of the client's objects, motives and
acts. This disclosure is made in the strictest
confidence, relying upon the attorney's honor and
fidelity. To permit the attorney to reveal to
others what is so disclosed, would be not only a
gross violation of a sacred trust upon his part,
but it would utterly destroy and prevent the
usefulness and benefits to be derived from
professional assistance. Based upon
considerations of public policy, therefore, the
law wisely declares that all confidential
communications and disclosures, made by a
client to his legal adviser for the purpose of
obtaining his professional aid or advice, shall
be strictly privileged; -- that the attorney shall not
be permitted, without the consent of his client, --
and much less will he be compelled -- to reveal or
disclose communications made to him under such
circumstances." 2 Mecham on Agency, 2d Ed., §
2297.
Commonwealth v. Maguigan, 511 A.2d 1327, 1333-1334 (Pa.
1986) (emphasis added). Our Supreme Court has further
opined,
Recognizing that its purpose is to create an
atmosphere that will encourage confidence and
dialogue between attorney and client, the privilege
is founded upon a policy extrinsic to the protection of
the fact-finding process. Estate of Kofsky, 487 Pa.
473, 409 A.2d 1358 (1979). The intended
- 21 -
J-A22010-15
beneficiary of this policy is not the individual client so
much as the systematic administration of justice
which depends on frank and open client-attorney
communication. In re Search Warrant B-21778,
513 Pa. 429, 521 A.2d 422, 428 (1987); Estate of
Kofsky, supra.
In re Investigating Grand Jury No. 88-00-3505, 593 A.2d
402 (Pa. 1991). In addition, “in Pennsylvania, the attorney-
client privilege operates in a two-way fashion to protect
confidential client-to-attorney or attorney-to-client
communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing
professional legal advice.” Gillard v. AIG Ins. Co., 15 A.3d 44,
59 (Pa. 2011).
The attorney-client relationship exists not only in one-on-
one situations between an individual and an attorney, but it can
also exist in a corporate environment in which general counsel or
legal staff is present. “When the client is a corporation, the
privilege extends to communications between its attorney and
agents or employees authorized to act on the corporation's
behalf.” In re Condemnation by City of Philadelphia in
16.2626 Acre Area, 981 A.2d 391, 396 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009)
(citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)). In
Upjohn, the United States Supreme Court analyzed the scope of
the attorney-client privilege when the client is a corporation.
Although Upjohn itself did not involve warnings or a discussion
of a lawyer’s explanation regarding the scope of his
representation, the Supreme Court observed that, under certain
situations, information about the extent of the attorney-client
relationship between a corporate counsel and an employee might
be necessary. As a result of that case, “Upjohn warnings” have
evolved that specifically inform a corporate employee that
corporate counsel represents the corporation and not the
individual, and that the corporation possesses the attorney-client
privilege. See Grace M. Giesel, Upjohn Warnings, the Attorney-
Client Privilege, and Principles of Lawyer Ethics: Achieving
Harmony, 65 U. Miami L. Rev. 109, 110-111 (Fall 2010).
In addition to the traditional attorney-client relationship
and the corporate environment, the attorney-client privilege also
can exist in the context of co-defendants and their attorney or
attorneys. When multiple defendants and their counsel engage
- 22 -
J-A22010-15
in a common defense, the privilege is not waived by the sharing
of confidential information among the parties for the benefit of
the joint defense. See Commonwealth v. Scarfo, 611 A.2d
242 (Pa.Super. 1992), superseded by statute on other ground as
stated in Commonwealth v. Buck, 709 A.2d 892 (Pa. 1998);
see also Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 1.6(a).
Schultz, slip opinion at 31-35 (footnote omitted).
Curley’s initial argument is that Ms. Baldwin “represented Mr. Curley
before the grand jury in his individual capacity and her testimony violates his
attorney-client privilege.” Appellant’s brief at 34. He contends that the
Pennsylvania Investigating Grand Jury Act (“Grand Jury Act” or “Act”)
protects a personal right to counsel and is designed to protect witnesses
from incriminating themselves. Mr. Curley notes that a corporation cannot
invoke the right against self-incrimination.
According to Curley, “[i]f as Ms. Baldwin now claims, she represented
Mr. Curley only as an agent, he was denied the right to counsel.” Id. at 37.
In his view, any testimony garnered while Ms. Baldwin only represented him
in an agency capacity was “obtained in violation of his right to counsel and
privilege against self-incrimination.” Id.15 Curley, however, submits that
____________________________________________
15
We note that Curley’s entire argument on appeal, relative to being denied
counsel, consists of the sentences quoted from above. Accordingly, he has
not developed on appeal the argument advanced below regarding a
constructive denial of counsel during his grand jury testimony. As
mentioned in footnote 13, Curley does not seek quashal of the perjury
charge arising from that testimony in this appeal based on a lack of
adequate counsel.
- 23 -
J-A22010-15
the grand jury supervising judge did not consider him as a corporate agent.
He contends that the record demonstrates that the supervising judge and
OAG did not treat him as testifying on behalf of Penn State. Curley
highlights that the subpoena in this matter was directed to him personally
and not as the University Athletic Director or as a keeper of records.
In addition, Curley asserts that Pa.R.Crim.P. 231 mandates that
counsel for the witness is permitted to be present and that Ms. Baldwin’s
presence in the grand jury room “demonstrated personal representation.”
Id. at 42. He continues that absent an adequate waiver of his personal
statutory right to the assistance of counsel, he must have been represented
in his individual capacity. Curley avers that the colloquy used by Judge
Feudale supports the position that Curley appeared in his personal capacity
and was being represented as such by Ms. Baldwin. Lastly, he points out
that under Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 1.2, a lawyer seeking to limit the scope of her
representation must ensure that the client provides informed consent, which
did not occur herein.
In light of our decision in Schultz, supra, we find that, even assuming
Ms. Baldwin represented Curley in an agency capacity, his communications
to her regarding being subpoenaed to testify before the criminal
investigating grand jury were privileged. In Schultz, we opined,
As our Rules of Professional Conduct illustrate,
communications between a putative client and corporate counsel
are generally privileged prior to counsel informing the individual
- 24 -
J-A22010-15
of the distinction between representing the individual as an
agent of the corporation and representing the person in his or
her personal capacity. See Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 1.2(c) (lawyer
may limit scope of representation provided the client gives
informed consent); Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 1.0(e) (defining “informed
consent”); see also Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 1.6(a) (“A lawyer shall
not reveal information relating to representation of a client
unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures
that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out representation
and except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).”); see also
Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 1.18(b) (“Even when no client-lawyer
relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned information from
a prospective client shall not use or reveal information which
may be significantly harmful to that person”).
When corporate counsel clarifies the potential inherent
conflict of interest in representing the corporation and an
individual and explains that the attorney may divulge the
communications between that person and the attorney because
they do not represent the individual, the individual may then
make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision whether to
continue communicating with corporate counsel. This is all the
more essential where the purpose of the individual seeking
advice relates to an appearance and testimony before a criminal
investigating grand jury.
Absent a privilege existing for preliminary communications,
the putative client cannot have full and frank discussions with
the attorney in order to determine whether it would be
appropriate for that lawyer to represent him or her in an
individual capacity. See Chmiel, supra at 422-423 (“The
purpose of the privilege is not to further the fact-finding process,
but to foster a confidence between attorney and client that will
lead to a trusting and open dialogue.”); Upjohn, supra at 389
(“Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication
between attorneys and their clients.”).
Furthermore, the attorney might be unable to make a
determination as to whether he or she could represent that
individual personally if the putative client believes full disclosure
will not be kept confidential. See In re Thirty-Third
Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, supra at 216-217
(internal citations and parenthetical omitted) (“The attorney-
- 25 -
J-A22010-15
client privilege is intended to foster candid
communications between counsel and client, so that counsel
may provide legal advice based upon the most complete
information from the client. The central principle is that a client
may be reluctant to disclose to his lawyer all facts necessary to
obtain informed legal advice, if the communication may later be
exposed to public scrutiny.”).
Schultz, slip opinion at 57-59.
Instantly, the trial court and Commonwealth have muddled the issue
by focusing almost solely on whether Ms. Baldwin represented Curley
individually or as an agent. As we outlined in Schultz, certain
communications between a corporate attorney and an employee of the
corporation still may be personally privileged. It simply does not follow that,
if Ms. Baldwin represented Curley as an agent of Penn State, none of his
communications with her were privileged. Moreover, the corporation must
still waive its own privilege in order for communications between its agents
and counsel to be disclosed. Here, the record establishes that the University
expressly declined to waive its privilege with respect to communications
between Ms. Baldwin and Curley. Thus, the trial court erred in finding that
Penn State waived its privilege regarding issues concerning Ms. Baldwin’s
communications with Curley.
With respect to Curley’s second issue, and whether application of
Mrozek is proper and the cases relied on by the trial court are
distinguishable, we need not repeat our discussion of those cases that we
undertook in Schultz. It will suffice that we agree that reliance on In the
- 26 -
J-A22010-15
Matter of Bevill, Bresler & Schulman Asset Mgmt. Corp., 805 F.2d 120
(3d Cir. 1988), Maleski by Chronister v. Corporate Life Ins. Co., 641
A.2d 1 (Pa.Cmwlth 1994), and United States v. Norris, 722 F. Supp. 2d
632 (E.D. Pa. 2010), in the context of advice given to an individual
preparing to testify before a criminal investigating grand jury was inapt and
that, even applying the Bevill test,16 the trial court erred in its legal
conclusions.
In the present case, Curley met with Ms. Baldwin to discuss the
subpoena served on him to testify before a criminal grand jury investigating
Jerry Sandusky. The subpoena was not for the University. This meeting
was for the purpose of securing legal advice. The trial court itself found that
Curley sought legal advice from Ms. Baldwin related to appearing before the
____________________________________________
16
The test outlined in In the Matter of Bevill, Bresler & Schulman
Asset Mgmt. Corp., 805 F.2d 120 (3d Cir. 1988), is as follows:
First, they must show they approached counsel for the purpose
of seeking legal advice. Second, they must demonstrate that
when they approached counsel they made it clear that they were
seeking legal advice in their individual rather than in their
representative capacities. Third, they must demonstrate that the
counsel saw fit to communicate with them in their individual
capacities, knowing that a possible conflict could arise. Fourth,
they must prove that their conversations with counsel were
confidential. And, fifth, they must show that the substance of
their conversations with counsel did not concern matters within
the company or the general affairs of the company.
Bevill, supra at 125.
- 27 -
J-A22010-15
grand jury investigation into Jerry Sandusky. The issues discussed between
Ms. Baldwin and Curley were not general business matters related to the
operation of the University, but pertained to the criminal investigation into
Jerry Sandusky. Indeed, unlike the cases relied on by the trial court, this
case does not involve discussions between corporate counsel and officers of
the corporation for purposes of operating and running that business or an
internal investigation into the corporation’s business practices.
Ms. Baldwin also communicated with Curley and expressed her belief
that no conflict existed between her representation of Schultz and Curley.
Thus, Ms. Baldwin was apparently aware of the potential for a conflict of
interest between Curley and Schultz. Ms. Baldwin did not reveal Curley’s
communications to the Board of Trustees of Penn State, except perhaps to
Spanier, whom she also represented at the very least as an agent of Penn
State. Curley has claimed his privilege and Penn State expressly refused to
waive any privilege relative to communications between Ms. Baldwin and
him. Finally, the communications concerned the rights and responsibilities
of Curley relative to appearing before a grand jury and not Penn State’s
corporate rights.
Moreover, Ms. Baldwin did not adequately explain to Curley that her
representation of him was solely as an agent of Penn State and that she did
not represent his individual interests. Although Curley was certainly aware
that Ms. Baldwin was general counsel for Penn State, this awareness did not
- 28 -
J-A22010-15
result in Curley knowing that she represented him solely in an agency
capacity. Indeed, it is illogical to conclude that Curley was aware of this
critical distinction when there is no evidence to suggest that at the relevant
time, the OAG and the supervising grand jury judge, experts in the law,
were able to distinguish Ms. Baldwin’s representation of Curley as being so
limited.
Curley’s final issue, that Ms. Baldwin violated his attorney-client
privilege by testifying at a grand jury hearing regarding communications
between him and her, flows from his prior positions. For the reasons already
outlined, we agree that Ms. Baldwin’s grand jury testimony was improper.
Ms. Baldwin was not competent to testify. Accordingly, and in light of our
holding and discussion in Schultz, we quash the obstruction of justice and
related conspiracy charge and find that Ms. Baldwin is precluded from
disclosing privileged communications between herself and Curley. See
Schultz, supra.
Order reversed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/22/2016
- 29 -