Prosecutors read attorney-client emails, use them as evidence

Government prosecutor's routinely read the emails that prisoners send to their lawyers, violating attorney-client confidentiality and possibly the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

The New York Times reports that the practice occurs around the country, but occurs most often in Brooklyn, where prosecutors have said they will use emails between clients and their attorneys at every chance they get.

The Times notes cases from around the country, such as a state senator from Pennsylvania who had an extra six months added to his sentence because of the contents of emails he sent to his lawyer.

In Georgia, a man accused trying to import fake prescription drugs was also charged and found guilty of contempt of court. The man used the prison email system to work on advertisements for weight loss supplements. He was found guilty of contempt because there was a permanent injunction against him that made it illegal for him to make untrue claims about weight loss.

A Brooklyn case involves a doctor accused of Medicare fraud. The defense is arguing that because of the enormous and complex nature of the case, they need the doctor's help to understand the documents and formulate a defense. They say they need to have their email communications protected from prosecutors because they could use the information discussed in the email exchanges to bolster their case against the doctor.

Thus far, the case focuses on around 50,000 pages of documents like medical records, billings, and Medicare claims. The lawyers contend that not allowing for confidential emails is a violation of attorney-client confidentiality because the prison system has failed to take the appropriate measures to safeguard that right.

For example, the prisons used to filter out attorney-client emails, but because of budget cuts no longer does so. The Times reports that the prison system has also failed to provide unmonitored phone calls, despite being required to do so. Lawyers for the doctor in the Medicare case claim that after four days and eight phone calls, they were unable to arrange such a phone call.