State v. Wilden
State v. Wilden, 2024 UT 37 (Durrant, J.) (Hagen, J., concurring)
Criminal
To prepare for Willden’s assault trial, Willden’s attorney and an investigator interviewed his sons. The State requested disclosure of the recordings, and Willden objected, because they were attorney work product. The district court ordered Willden to disclose redacted recordings. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding:
- The district court erred in ordering disclosure of the witness recordings. Recent amendments to rule 16(b)(4) severed the distinction between “core attorney work product” and “factual work product.”
- Concurrence: Justice Hagen concurred to highlight that due to developments in federal law, a majority of states impose a reciprocal discovery obligation to disclose witness statements.
- Practice tip: Under Gold Standard, 805 P.2d 164 (Utah 1990), attorney work product protected by rule 16(b)(4) refers to “(1) . . . documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable, (2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, (3) by or for another party or by or for that party’s representative.”