Christopher Matthew Clements v. Hon. bernini/state

Summary

The court held that a party asserting attorney-client privilege must make a prima facie showing for each communication, but the court may not invade the claimed privilege through in camera review merely to decide whether it exists. For recorded jail calls, confidentiality must be assessed under the circumstances, including the warning, the inmate's reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and whether jail policies unreasonably burden access to counsel. If privilege is established, the State must first provide an adequate factual basis for applying the crime-fraud exception, which it had conceded it could not do here. The court vacated the special-master review order and remanded; no separate opinions were issued.