Mack murder case lifts veil on attorney-client privilege

To a lawyer, it's sacrosanct: Thou shalt not reveal secrets told by a client under the protection of attorney-client privilege - no matter how damning.

But when a client accuses his lawyer of mishandling a case, the veil of privilege is shattered, and the secrets - for better or worse - become engraved in the legal mass of public record.

Darren Mack, charged with slashing his wife to death and shooting the judge who handled their bitter divorce, lifted the veil on private attorney-client discussions when he accused his former lawyers of coercing him into a plea deal he says he never wanted.

Mack, 46, a wealthy pawnbroker, told a court that lawyers David Chesnoff of Las Vegas and Scott Freeman of Reno had so bungled his case that he deserved to start over.

Freeman has handled several notable cases in Carson City including defending one of the men charged in the 2004 murder case of Adam Wells, representing one of the 12 youths charged in the 1997 beating death of Sammy Resendiz, and defending one of two Marines charged in the 1999 slaughter of wild horses in Storey County.

Because of Mack's assertions about Chesnoff's and Freeman's bad defense, chilling details of Charla Mack's killing from Mack's former attorneys have made their way into the legal record and gave prosecutors evidence previously off-limits that they say can be used against him at his sentencing.

Attorney-client privilege is "very sacred," said Robert Weisberg, faculty director of the Criminal Justice Center at Stanford Law School.

Legal experts say Mack must live with his decision to use his former lawyers as grounds for seeking a new trial.

Days after agreeing to a plea deal in November, Mack changed his mind, fired Chesnoff and Freeman, hired Reno lawyers William Routsis and Bruce Lindsay, sought to withdraw his pleas and have a new trial.

In a 35-page declaration that District Judge Douglas Herndon said "strains credibility," Mack accused his former lawyers of serious allegations, including making him lie and forging his signature.

With those accusations, the privilege that had existed was waived.

Chesnoff and Freeman both testified last month during a four-day hearing on Mack's motion to withdraw his pleas.

Uncomfortable on the witness stand, Freeman asked the judge several times to reaffirm that the attorney-client privilege had been waived.

Routsis questioned Freeman about why he didn't alert police to the dumpster where Mack had thrown the gun that Charla Mack allegedly pointed at him and the knife he used to kill her.

Mack claimed the gun would have had his wife's fingerprints on it, and bolstered his defense that she attacked him.

Freeman responded by noting the attorney-client creed.

"When I learn something from my client, I'm not telling anybody," he said. "I'm not telling anybody about any gun, I'm not telling anybody about a knife."

If found, he said, the weapons also could have confirmed Mack's guilt.

Freeman later called the ordeal of testifying "unprecedented."

"Never, in 24 years, have I had to testify against a client that I defended as zealously as I did," he told The Associated Press.

The plan during Mack's first trial was to have Mack testify, until the defense team became increasingly concerned about how Mack would be perceived by jurors.

Chesnoff testified that he became "physically ill" while preparing Mack to testify as Mack described how he put his knee on his dying wife's head as blood gurgled out.

It took Herndon nearly two hours to explain his ruling, reciting dozens of higher court opinions and case law, before denying Mack's motion.

Under the plea deal, Mack faces up to life in prison with possible parole after 20 years for murder, and he avoided what would have been an automatic second consecutive life term for using a deadly weapon. He also faces two terms of two to 20 years for attempted murder with a deadly weapon.

Herndon must decide whether those terms will run back-to-back or at the same time.

Afterward, Special Prosecutor Christopher Lalli said he was happy for Mack's assistance as the case goes to sentencing Feb. 7-8.

"We know things about the facts that we didn't know before," Lalli told reporters on the courthouse steps minutes after the ruling. "Things he did, things he said, things he thought about."

And Stempel noted that sentencing is just one phase in what's likely to be a long legal process, from post-conviction appeals to parole hearings.

"Anything that's on the record now, it's all relevant for future proceedings," he said.

• Appeal staff writer F.T. Norton contributed to this story.