Lawyer Secretly Records His Client and Ends Up in Court!

Added: 2026-05-04

[00:00:06]On June 24th, 2025, defendant Ronald Allen was charged in the 187th District Court in Bear County, Texas with making a terroristic threat in violation of section 22.07 of the Texas Penal Code for allegedly threatening to commit an offense involving violence with the intent to place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury. Now, the state's primary evidence supporting the charge came from a recording of Mr. Allen that was secretly made by Charles Ireland. Mr. Allen's former divorce and custody attorney. In the recording, Mr. Allen can be heard making a statement that Mr. Ireland and the authorities interpreted as a threat to commit multiple murders.

[00:00:45]>> I'm prepared for Wednesday, but something is going to happen that's going to change history. Whether you bust these guys or there's dead bodies everywhere, bro.

[00:00:53]>> Mr. Allen's criminal defense lawyer, Charles Butcher, filed a motion to suppress the recording as well as a motion to dismiss the charge against his client. And the motions were scheduled for a hearing on July 28th, 2025 in front of Judge Stephanie Boyd.

[00:01:07]>> So, because there was a warrant defense, you may proceed. Well, judge, um, when when we begin with our motion to suppress, we believe that the central issue here is not the the warrant, so to speak, but that the uh the state's primary evidence comes from a secretly recorded attorney client conversation between Ronald and his former lawyer, uh, Mr. Ireland. The conversation uh occurred in a confidential legal setting during a time of of high emotional stress on the part of of my client and in a context where Ronald was actually seeking legal advice and not making public threats. We argue that the recording should be suppressed for two real core reasons. First off, there's a breach of confidentiality and and the attorney client relationship. So even if Mr. Island is a party to the recording.

[00:01:58]This was a protected consultation. The decision to record, share, and weaponize that conversation violates the principles of trust and canandor embedded in our legal system among lawyers. The second reason that we think that the recording should be suppressed is because the resulting statement, it lacks reliability. The the state offers a paraphrase.

[00:02:19]>> All right, council. Just one second. If we can start with you're saying that there's an attorney client privilege that's been violated by the attorney.

[00:02:29]>> We believe that u the reason for that is there's disciplinary rules regarding attorney client confidentiality privileges but we do uh know that the complaining witness in this case had a contractual relationship with Ronald Allen and that he was his divorce and custody lawyer. and and this this conversation according to the state's evidence, my client, and all other indications, occurred in that attorney's office in a confidential setting, and it was recorded without the knowledge of Ronald Allen. And we believe that it was weaponized by the attorney because of a contractual dispute because of problems with the representation that were occurring that were being discussed in the recording that is in the states the state's evidence, the state's discovery.

[00:03:16]So, with regards to your stating that this was some sort of attorney client privilege, unless someone is going to stipulate that there was a conversation uh that was had between your client, and the fact that your client had this conversation with his then attorney, Mr. Ireland, and that during that representation, there was a conversation between the two. Is somebody going to stipulate to that? Yes, judge. By the end of today, uh if uh if the state has their witness like they say they do, uh we believe that Mr. Ireland will testify and he is the complaining witness on this case. That's our understanding.

[00:03:57]>> So, who is calling the witness?

[00:03:59]>> The state does have two witnesses ready and even though there wasn't a warrant and or there was and burden has shifted, the state the state has our witnesses here and if defense wants to call our witness and then have him available to us on cross, he's available.

[00:04:14]>> All right. Then defense because there was stipulated that there was a warrant then the burden does shift to the defense. So uh what witness would you like to call?

[00:04:24]>> Let's call Mr. Ireland. Charles Michael Ireland.

[00:04:27]>> Okay.

[00:04:28]>> Hello. All right. Could you I recognize you as an officer of the court. However, if you could raise your right hand for me. Do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? So I hope you got it.

[00:04:38]>> I do.

[00:04:39]>> All right. You can have a seat. All right. If you'll state your name for the record. Charles Michael Ireland Jr.

[00:04:44]>> All right, you may proceed, defense.

[00:04:46]>> Uh, Mr. Ireland, uh, were you Mr. Allen's attorney uh, during a portion of his family court case?

[00:04:53]>> Yes.

[00:04:54]>> Uh, you made a recording of a meeting that you had with him. Uh, that meeting where the recording was made, that took place in your office. Is that correct, >> your honor? Meeting >> sustained.

[00:05:05]>> Where was the recording made?

[00:05:07]>> In my office.

[00:05:08]>> All right. Do you know if Mr. Allan believed he was speaking with you in confidence uh because of the contractual relationship you had or did you have some other arrangement where you had already told him that you were getting off the case?

[00:05:21]>> Objection, your honor. Speculation >> sustained.

[00:05:24]>> Why was he in your office?

[00:05:25]>> I believe that's attorney client privilege.

[00:05:27]>> And so uh the conversation uh you would agree that the conversation that you had with Mr. Allen was attorney client privilege. Correct. Well, that's all I have for right now, judge. I'd like to pass the witness.

[00:05:41]>> All right, state.

[00:05:41]>> Your honor, may I approach?

[00:05:43]>> Yes.

[00:05:43]>> I am showing you what has been pre-marked as state's exhibit one. And what is this?

[00:05:48]>> It's a recording of the conversation I had with Mr. Allen.

[00:05:52]>> What date did that happen?

[00:05:54]>> I believe it's April 21st, 2025.

[00:05:57]>> And are your initials anywhere on this?

[00:05:59]>> Yes.

[00:06:00]>> And is there a date associated with your initials?

[00:06:02]>> Yes.

[00:06:02]>> What date is that?

[00:06:03]>> Today's date, July 28th, 2025. And when you listen to this, was it an accurate portrayal of the events that day as you remember them?

[00:06:12]>> Yes.

[00:06:12]>> Was it altered in any way?

[00:06:14]>> No.

[00:06:14]>> Your honor, at this time, state moves to enter states exhibit one for purposes of this hearing pending inspection by defense.

[00:06:22]>> Yes, I see that and that's been provided to me.

[00:06:24]>> Any objections for this judge?

[00:06:26]>> All right. States exhibit number one is admitted for purposes of this hearing.

[00:06:31]You on direct stated that you agreed the conversation was attorney client privilege. Is that true?

[00:06:37]>> Yes.

[00:06:38]>> Did you believe the entire conversation was attorney client privilege?

[00:06:41]>> No.

[00:06:42]>> What sorts of things are not privileged under that attorney client privilege?

[00:06:47]>> Uh Mr. Allen said some things to me that I believe clearly established that he was going to attempt to or commit an act that would cause bodily harm or worse to one or more individuals. Do you recognize rule 503 to be the rules of evidence for attorney client privilege?

[00:07:05]>> Yes.

[00:07:07]>> And in that rule, there is an exception.

[00:07:11]That's true, right? There's multiple exceptions.

[00:07:14]>> There's multiple.

[00:07:15]>> There's an exception that says the privilege does not apply in furtherance of a crime. Is that true?

[00:07:20]>> If you say so.

[00:07:22]>> Well, in this conversation that we're about to hear, something alarmed you.

[00:07:27]Isn't that true?

[00:07:27]>> Yes.

[00:07:28]And you believed that the attorney client privilege no longer held because of that statement.

[00:07:34]>> I believe that because of what was told to me, I had a mandatory duty to report it to uh authorities.

[00:07:41]>> Prosecutor Duffy Pitlock questions Mr. Ireland about whether or not Mr. Allen's statement was covered by attorney client privilege. In Texas, attorney client privilege is codified in rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, which establishes that a client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between a client and their attorney made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services. The privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney. And it exists to encourage open and honest communication between a client and their council so that the legal system can function effectively.

[00:08:19]Now, for the privilege to apply, the communication must be made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining or facilitating legal services. In this case, Mr. Allen and Mr. Ireland had a valid attorney client relationship. The conversation took place in Mr. Ireland's office, and Mr. Allen believed that he was speaking in confidence. The central question then is whether Mr. Allen's statement was protected by attorney client privilege or as we will discuss later in this episode, Mr. Ireland had the discretion or duty to disclose the recording. Mr. Pitlock then moved to introduce the recording made by Mr. Ireland into evidence and played the recording in its entirety for the court, pausing at key moments to question Mr. Ireland about specific statements. The recording ran approximately 13 minutes in total. Following the playback, Mr. Mr. Pitlock continued his cross-examination of Mr. Ireland.

[00:09:10]>> Mr. Ireland, what did you take this statement? I'm prepared for Wednesday, but something is going to happen that is going to change history. You bust these guys or there's dead bodies everywhere below. What did you take that to mean?

[00:09:22]>> I believe that was a threat that if he didn't get what he was seeking that people would be hurt.

[00:09:28]>> You're familiar with threats like these?

[00:09:31]That's true.

[00:09:32]>> Yes.

[00:09:33]>> What do threats like these look like?

[00:09:35]I've been a family law attorney for almost 13 years. I've been threatened before. I think you have to take every threat seriously. So when those words were said, I believe them to be a real true threat.

[00:09:47]>> In the recording we just heard at 57 seconds, defendant says history is going to be made on Wednesday. Tell us the significance about that Wednesday date.

[00:09:56]>> That was the date we were set for temporary orders hearing. Mr. Allan had up until that point supervised possession and access of his son and we were hoping to get unsupervised possession and access.

[00:10:06]>> You did not have a scheduled interview with defendant on the day in question.

[00:10:11]That's true.

[00:10:12]>> That's true.

[00:10:13]>> And if you may please explain to us how defendant came to be in your office.

[00:10:19]>> He just showed up.

[00:10:20]>> Had he spoken with anyone before speaking with you in your office?

[00:10:24]>> I think he met with my front desk receptionist. Why did you accept this uh interaction with defendant when he hadn't had a planned meeting with you?

[00:10:35]>> I had availability in my calendar. I had about a half hour to 45 minutes available if I remember correctly and I knew he was anxious about the hearing and so I thought I'd give him some of my time to hopefully make him feel better.

[00:10:48]>> You had never recorded a conversation with you and Mr. Allen before. That's >> that's corre Sorry. That's correct. It is not your normal practice to record conversations with clients.

[00:10:58]>> That is also correct.

[00:11:00]>> After defendant said, "I'm prepared for Wednesday. Something is going to happen that's going to change history. Bust these guys or there's dead bodies everywhere." Who was the first person you called after that?

[00:11:11]>> I called the State Bar Ethics Hotline.

[00:11:13]>> What were you advised? I had a mandatory duty to report what was told to me to law enforcement under rule 105E of the Texas rules of the disciplinary rules for attorneys that we the ethical rules that we live by.

[00:11:27]>> Why did they say you had an ethical duty to report?

[00:11:29]>> The state bar ethics hotline believed it met the standard in 105E.

[00:11:33]>> Mr. Ireland testifies that he interpreted Mr. Allen's statement as a threat and that following Mr. Allen's departure from his office, he contacted the State Bar of Texas ethics helpline and subsequently consulted his personal attorney, both of whom advised him that he had a mandatory duty to report Mr. Allen's statement to law enforcement.

[00:11:52]The State Bar of Texas ethics hotline is a confidential resource operated by the State Bar of Texas that allows attorneys to seek guidance on ethical obligations, including questions about the scope of their duty of confidentiality. That duty of confidentiality is governed by rule 1.05 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, which applies to all quote unquote confidential information an attorney acquires during the course of a representation.

[00:12:19]So-called confidential information is broader than the scope of attorney client privilege and includes both privileged communications and unprivileged information that the attorney learned by reason of the representation. As a general matter, rule 1.05 05 prohibits attorneys from disclosing confidential information without the client's consent. The rule does however provide exceptions.

[00:12:42]Subsection C7 of rule 1.05 permits an attorney to disclose confidential information when the attorney has reason to believe disclosure is necessary to prevent the client from committing any criminal or fraudulent act. Subsection E of rule 1.05 goes further. When confidential information clearly establishes that a client is likely to commit an act resulting in death or substantial bodily harm, disclosure is no longer permissive but mandatory, limited only to what reasonably appears necessary to prevent the act.

[00:13:14]Accordingly, if Mr. Allen's statement met the threshold established by subsection E, Mr. Ireland was not only permitted to disclose it to law enforcement, but he was required to do so.

[00:13:24]>> Did you call anyone else?

[00:13:25]>> Yes.

[00:13:26]>> Who?

[00:13:26]>> My attorney, Carl Cobb. What did attorney Cole or Cobb advise you?

[00:13:32]>> Um, I provided him the recording and then he advised me I had a mandatory duty to report it to law enforcement under rule 105e.

[00:13:39]>> Do you remember speaking with an investigator Lopez?

[00:13:43]>> Yes.

[00:13:44]>> When you initially called to report, you told Lopez your fear of the threat that there were going to be dead bodies everywhere, right?

[00:13:53]>> Yes. You did not tell Lopez anything about any attorney client privileged information.

[00:14:01]>> No.

[00:14:01]>> The recording we just heard, its total duration is 12 minutes 54 seconds. It was at 10:45 that defendant said, "There's going to be bodies everywhere."

[00:14:11]How did you respond to that statement?

[00:14:12]>> I was in shock. That was the second time he had said, "We're going to make history on Wednesday." And I think at some point, even my head, I said, "Don't say it." And then he said it that there would be dead bodies everywhere.

[00:14:24]>> After you reported this threat, what else did you do? You didn't feel safe.

[00:14:28]What did you do for safety reasons?

[00:14:30]>> We locked our front door and I excused my staff, whoever didn't feel comfortable being there.

[00:14:37]>> Any other precautionary measures >> that day? No.

[00:14:40]>> How about in the near future? I arranged for my office to have active shooter training and also paid for my entire staff to be trained in handgun shooting.

[00:14:51]>> You would agree with me that throughout this 12minut 54 conversation, you agreed with a lot of defendants statements and paranoia. Isn't that true?

[00:15:01]>> I don't know that I agreed with the paranoia. I had felt like up to that point that Ronnie had gotten a unfair shake in the civil courts.

[00:15:12]You had mentioned when defendant said, "I'm scared." You agreed this is a scary thing, right?

[00:15:18]>> Well, I thought he was talking about he was scared about losing his relationship with his son. And as a parent, like I get that.

[00:15:24]>> When defendant was talking about things are being overlooked, you agreed. You said, "I think you're getting for sure."

[00:15:31]>> So that statement was because I thought, like I said, I thought he was getting an unfair shake in the civil courts based on my experience with Mr. Allen up to that point. When would dead bodies be everywhere?

[00:15:42]>> I presumed based on the subject matter of the conversation, it would be on April 23rd, that Wednesday at the hearing.

[00:15:48]>> At minute or 57 seconds, history is going to be made on Wednesday. You remember defendant saying that?

[00:15:53]>> Yes.

[00:15:54]>> 6 minutes 52 seconds. I know Wednesday something changes in my favor. You remember that?

[00:15:58]>> Yes.

[00:15:58]>> 10 minutes 45 seconds. I'm prepared for Wednesday, but something is going to happen that is going to change history.

[00:16:04]You bust these guys or there's dead bodies everywhere, bro. Do you remember that?

[00:16:07]>> Yes. Your honor, may I approach?

[00:16:10]>> Yes.

[00:16:11]>> I'm handing you what has been pre-marked as states exhibit 3. If you may please look at this briefly and then look at some questions when you're ready.

[00:16:20]>> Okay.

[00:16:20]>> Do you know what this is?

[00:16:21]>> Yes.

[00:16:22]>> How do you know what this is?

[00:16:23]>> Uh, this is the transcript of a a hearing, well, the part of the final hearing for Mr. Allen's protective order.

[00:16:31]>> What date does this have on it?

[00:16:33]>> June 23rd, 2025.

[00:16:35]>> What court does this have on it? Well, the case is filed in the 150th, but it was heard by Judge Christine Hortick in the 225th.

[00:16:41]>> Is this in Bear County, Texas?

[00:16:43]>> Yes.

[00:16:43]>> At this hearing, it had something to do with a motion to withdraw as council. Is that true?

[00:16:50]>> That hearing?

[00:16:51]>> No, that was not for my motion to withdraw as counsel.

[00:16:54]>> Thank you. What was this hearing for?

[00:16:57]>> Uh, that was the continuation of the final protective order hearing that Miss Allen had filed against Mr. Allen. and I testified that day.

[00:17:07]>> There was discussion about a motion to withdraw though, wasn't there?

[00:17:11]>> And when asked about that motion to withdraw, you told the court that the defendant made a reason a statement that you reasonably believed led you to believe that the defendant was going to commit a crime that would result in the death or substantial harm to another person. Isn't that true?

[00:17:28]>> That's true.

[00:17:29]>> And this was two days before that Wednesday hearing. Isn't that true? When the statement was made.

[00:17:33]>> Yes. Please describe defendants's behavior while he was in your office.

[00:17:38]>> He never sat down. Uh he paced back and forth behind the chairs I have in front of my desk. He seemed very agitated.

[00:17:48]He was sweating profusely.

[00:17:50]>> Were you scared in your office during this conversation?

[00:17:54]>> Over the course of the conversation, I became more and more anxious.

[00:17:58]>> When defendants said there would be bodies everywhere, were you afraid for your life?

[00:18:03]>> Yes. Were you you were afraid for your staff's life?

[00:18:05]>> Yes.

[00:18:06]>> You were afraid for the lives of the people at the courthouse.

[00:18:09]>> Absolutely.

[00:18:10]>> You were afraid for defendants's family's life.

[00:18:14]>> Yes.

[00:18:14]>> To specifically include the children.

[00:18:17]>> Yes. His son Aiden.

[00:18:18]>> The child and the ex >> and I'm sorry, >> his ex.

[00:18:23]>> Yes.

[00:18:24]>> Now, defendant never said, "I'm going to He didn't give a specific manner and means. Didn't give a specific person."

[00:18:32]But what contextually made you believe this was an actual threat?

[00:18:36]>> Twice he said, "I'm going to make history." On Wednesday, he said something was going to change. And when he made the statement, um, "De bodies everywhere." After he said he was going to make history, that specifically.

[00:18:48]>> You mentioned playing the recording for your staff. That freaked them out, didn't it?

[00:18:53]>> Yes. They were all very concerned.

[00:18:54]Objection. Hearay.

[00:18:56]>> Right. That'll be sustained.

[00:18:58]>> Your honor, if you stay kindly passes the witness.

[00:19:01]>> All right. Defense, you may proceed.

[00:19:03]>> Following the conclusion of Mr. Pitlock's crossexamination, the defense conducted a redirect examination of Mr. Ireland. The state then called investigator Chay Lopez of the Bear County Sheriff's Office, who testified about his investigation into Mr. Allen's statement and the warrant that he generated for Mr. Allen's arrest. The defense subsequently called Mr. Allen to the stand where he testified about a number of matters related to the motions, including his explanation for what he meant by the statement that Mr. Ireland interpreted as a threat >> because I felt like the judges and the lawyers weren't taking this this matter serious enough. I think that they were the reasons why my cousin committed suicide. And I believe that all the violence and and all the murders that are with the family cases are because of they're toying around with it. and not think that there's dead bodies everywhere because of it. Every family situation I a murder sit murder suicide I see on the news was related to a family dispute gone out of control and that's what I was referring to.

[00:20:16]>> Following Mr. Allen's testimony, Judge Boyd closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing and ordered both parties to return the following morning to present arguments on the motion to suppress and the motion to dismiss. Uh what I would like to start with the defense's argument is there's no probable cause.

[00:20:34]You may address that council.

[00:20:35]>> Uh judge uh regarding the uh we did hear uh testimony from Mr. Allen, Officer Jay, and Attorney Ireland. We heard attorney Ireland's recording. We'd uh seen the state's theory uh take its full shape. There's a lack of criminal conduct on this uh matter because from the outset, the prosecution relied on a paraphrase quote allegedly said by Mr. Allen, which was, "If I don't get custody, I will make history and there will be dead bodies everywhere." But when we heard the recording, uh, that phrase was never heard by the court, and the recording submitted by Mr. Ireland and played for the court. The actual statement by made by Ronald was quote.

[00:21:11]So, if I was going to do that, and I knew all this stuff was going to happen, period, I'm prepared for Wednesday. But something's going to happen that's going to change history. whether you bust these guys or there's dead bodies everywhere, bro. Later, he says, "Because if they don't get busted, there's going to be dead bodies everywhere." Now, our contention is is that neither of these statements includes an assertion of personal action on the part of Mr. Allen. Uh there is no named victim. There is no identified target, and there is no expressed intent to carry out any kind of violence. It's also troubling that the DA's office or Detective Chay did not fully review the audio, but simply adopted Mr. Ireland's paraphrase as fact. I think that this misstep undermines the reliability of the charging process and bolsters the necessity for judicial correction through either suppression or the dismissal.

[00:22:03]>> All right. And with regards to no complainant being identified, is there really a need for a complainant to be identified if there is a threat? And I'm not saying it's a threat. These are just questions that I have. Mr. Allen, is there a need to identify a singular person if there's an alleged threat that there would be bodies?

[00:22:26]>> Well, I think a part of this is the nature of the charge is that this is a terroristic threat on a public servant.

[00:22:32]Although other public servants are discussed in the 12-minute recording that we heard, none of those public servants are specifically targeted. Uh this statement has been taken out of context. He's not particularly uh naming that he's going to do anything to the court or to the courthouse or to any of the people that work here. Um I'm also uh you know I think you should know I I've been practicing 15 years and I work in this courthouse every day and I don't feel like uh Mr. Allen is a threat to this court either. Um further when we talk about this the Mr. Allen's testimony reflects a constitutional innocence to him because he testified that he believed he was speaking confidentially with his own lawyer. He had no intent to harm anyone. He was not emotionally uh stable at that point because of the difficulty that he was having with this custody matter. He was also shocked to learn that the words that he mentioned in his own lawyer where he has an expectation of privacy were being recorded and being used against him to third parties.

[00:23:33]>> All right. So, do both parties stipulate that a client's conversation with his attorney in a legal capacity is confidential? That that's the bar. Do both parties stipulate to that >> the state understands that confidentiality bar is there with exceptions.

[00:23:51]>> Yes. Is there an exception? And I think both parties know the answer to the confidentiality if there is a threat of violence or if there is a threat of a future crime. Yes, the state is aware.

[00:24:03]>> All right. And defense, do you stipulate to that?

[00:24:06]>> Yes, judge. We do know that uh there are uh rules uh rule 105 C7 of the ethics rule provide for permissive disclosure to prevent criminal acts. U and we anticipate that Ireland would be arguing uh that he had discretion under this section if he reasonably believed the disclosure was necessary to prevent a future crime. However, according to those rules, the magnitude, proximity, and likelihood of harm must be weighed.

[00:24:32]The threat must appear imminent and grave, and the disclosure must be no greater than necessary. The problem here is that Ireland disclosed everything and voluntarily handed over a recording, and that recording was not narrowly tailored as a warning. And then we have his own testimony where uh Mr. Ireland gets on the stand and he tells us also in the recording, "I'm not afraid of anything regarding this case." That contradicts a reasonable belief of a grave and imminent harm. Um, he continues to try to expand and express that he's in deeper fear than he was in the moment.

[00:25:10]And I think that's a a vital distinction because if there's a terroristic threat, um, I think that his actions should be immediate, but rather what Mr. Ireland did he didn't immediately call 911. He immediately called the amicus attorney.

[00:25:24]He thinks we he doesn't remember that but we believe that he called the amicus attorney cuz we got a bill for that. And then further uh he calls the Texas bar hotline which is going to favor him making this disclosure at least to mitigate the immediate harm. But I think on retrospect after 100 days in jail uh the harm and the potential harm has been mitigated.

[00:25:49]>> All right. So let's start here. The first thing the court finds through stipulation and I think both parties know that when someone is speaking to their attorney about legal matters that they've been contracted to do normally it's privileged. But I think both parties have also stipulated that there are exceptions to that privilege and one of them is if there is a threat of future criminal activity or is it if there is a threat of harm to anyone else. So let's start uh state. Do you want to address whether or not the communication that was testified that is the basis for this alleged offense whether or not that was privileged?

[00:26:32]>> Yes, your honor. that was not privileged communication. It is detailed in the exception for furtherance of criminal activity express or implied intent by saying if X does not happen then Y is going to happen. If X I don't get my custody then Y there's going to be dead bodies everywhere.

[00:26:53]That is both express and implied.

[00:26:56]Express dead bodies implied maybe the how. Those privileges are to ensure fair trial, trust between parties. The privilege is not intended to grant people a right to threaten and to use words to cause a reaction like what happened in this case. It's not privileged.

[00:27:18]>> All right. So the court is going to find that there has not been a violation of the attorney client privilege under the disciplinary code 1.05C7.

[00:27:28]Now the next thing I want to talk to you all about is whether or not the communication to his attorney that we're here for whether or not that's protected speech and that's a part of your motion as well. Client uh Mr. Richard.

[00:27:42]>> Yes, Judge. Uh that uh that goes towards the the motion to dismiss regarding this. I I think there's some particulars in the recording and in what we've discussed uh with uh Mr. Ireland on the on the stand. There are a number of statements that Mr. Ireland stated that tend to uh show that uh at the moment Michael Ireland was not afraid. Um his own words and conduct tend to prove it.

[00:28:05]What we think is that Ronald's Allen's testimony reflects constitutional innocence because Mr. Allen testified that believed he believed he was speaking confidentially with his lawyer.

[00:28:15]He had no intent to harm anyone. He was emotionally distraught, particularly due to the custody losses, and he was shocked to learn that his words had been recorded. When we get further into this, Ronald also expresses his own fear in the recording because he says, "I'm scared for my life, dude." That's not the speech of a wouldbe asalent. It's the language of a man trying to make sense of what he perceives as an unjust legal system. In my motion, uh, I mentioned a number of cases, and one of them is the Watts case. Um, in the Watts case, in a 1966 anti-draft rally in Washington DC, an 18-year-old draft dodger made the following remark. Quote, "If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is Lyndon Vance Johnson, LBJ." This by the Supreme Court was interpreted as a threat. Uh, this was interpreted as a threat by the authorities under the uh the United States Code regarding terrorist threats from the president.

[00:29:11]The Supreme Court found in 1966 that they reversed a conviction holding that Watt's statement was political rhetoric and not a true threat and therefore was protected speech under the first amendment. This applies because the context matters. Truth threats are not protected speech, but the government must prove that the speaker intended the statement to be understood as a serious expression of intent to inflict harm. So hyperbol exaggeration or emotional venting, even if it's crude or alarming, doesn't qualify as a true threat. In reference to Ronald's case, this also was a vague and conditional statement.

[00:29:50]It was delivered in a nonviolent setting, and it was interpreted literally by the government despite clear indications that it was a figurative rhetoric that Mr. Allen was engaged in. In Ronald's case, it was emotionally charged, but it was conditional and it was made during a private dispute involving custody.

[00:30:08]There's another case uh more recent in 2015, the Alanis v. United States case where the Supreme Court held punishing threats require proof of a men's RIA or a subjective intent to threaten. The Alanis case holds that a person cannot be convicted based on how others might perceive their words. Rather, the speaker must actually intend actually intend for those words to instill fear or communicate a threat. In this case, the full transcript demonstrates Ronald's alleged threat was embedded in an extended stream of anxious, erratic speculation and emotionally charged grievances where at one point Ronald even says, "I got called into jury duty the same week in the same courtroom. The odds of that is like me winning the lottery 20 times in a row. Bro, it didn't even happen." He further elaborates, "Hey, I had jury duty, dude.

[00:30:54]They asked me certain questions and they made me sit there all day. The same effing judge. They wanted to know what I knew and if I recognize those other two girls. When I read these statements, they don't seem to be statements of intent. They are statements of subjective fear, suspicion, and confusion. And it's exactly the kind of talk one might share only with their lawyer while trying to process whether the system is fair or rigged. Here, far from planning any violence, Ronald was exploring whether something conspiritual was happening to him, and he was seeking his lawyers validation and advice. In the same way in Alanis, the court emphasized that convictions under federal threat statutes require subjective intent. So the speaker must actually have intended the words to be understood as threatening. In that case, the court rever the court reversed a conviction that was based on an objective reasonable person standard and holding that omitting a reference to intent in a criminal statute does not mean that the mere negligence is the appropriate mental state. So here uh we might agree that the words that Ronald used in his lawyer's office were negligent because they might be interpreted as a threat, but his intention and the state hasn't shown that his intention was to make a threat >> to the general public.

[00:32:05]>> Mr. Butcher argues that Mr. Allen's statement was protected political hyperbole under the first amendment rather than a so-called true threat and that the state failed to establish the men's rhea or mental state necessary to support the underlying charge. In the 2003 case of Virginia v. black. The Supreme Court defined a quote unquote true threat as a statement by which a speaker communicates a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group and determined that statements that fall into this category are not protected by the First Amendment. However, in the 1969 case of Watts v. United States. The court held that a statement which is conditional, made in an emotionally charged context, and not intended to be taken literally, constitutes protected political hyperbole rather than a true threat. In this case, Mr. Butcher argued that Mr. Allen's statement made privately to his own attorney during an emotionally charged custody dispute was similarly conditional and contextual. Now, on the question of men's rehea, the Supreme Court held in the 2015 case of Alonus v.

[00:33:08]United States that a conviction for threatening another individual requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, not merely that someone interpreted the statement as a threat. The court refined that standard further in the 2023 case of Countermanman v. Colorado, holding that to establish that a statement is a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment. The government must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of the statement based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness. Here, Mr. Butcher's position is that Mr. Allen lacked the requisite mental state to make a terroristic threat. As Mr. Allen testified that he had no intent to threaten anyone and believed he was speaking confidentially with his own attorney about his frustrations with the legal system. at this juncture isn't whatever your client's intent. That's something for a jury to decide or if this were a bench trial then it would be for me to decide. But based upon your emotions, what you're here for is whether or not there was a warrant issued. It's been submitted that there was a warrant issued. Both parties stipulated to that. whether or not the communication with his attorney was privileged or not. I'm finding that the communication was not privileged because it falls under the exception of a threat that was being made. So the threat that was being made that wasn't privileged communication. Now whether or not Mr. Allen Mr. Allan, whether or not you meant that or whether or not it was intentionally, knowingly, or whatever the men's rhea may be, that's something for a jury to make that determination.

[00:34:50]Uh, the motion to dismiss is denied. The motion to suppress is denied. Uh, I'm going to schedule this for a jury trial for September 30th.

[00:34:59]>> Judge Boyd determined that Mr. Allen's statement to Mr. Ireland did not fall within the protection of attorney client privilege and that the question of whether Mr. Allan possessed the men's rhea necessary to support a conviction was a matter for a jury to decide on the complete factual record, not an issue for her to decide as a judge in a pre-trial motion. Accordingly, she denied the motion to suppress and the motion to dismiss, scheduling the case for jury trial on September 30th, 2025.

[00:35:25]However, on August 28th, 2025, Mr. Allen entered a plea of no contest to the terroristic threat charge and applied for deferred adjudication, a form of probation available in Texas under which a defendant who successfully completes the terms of supervision avoids a formal conviction on their record. On September 16th, 2025, Judge Boyd granted the application placing Mr. Allen on community supervision for 5 years. This case illustrates the practical limits on confidentiality within the attorney client relationship. While attorney client privilege is broad and the expectation of confidentiality when speaking with an attorney is well established, that protection is not without boundaries and exceptions. As a general matter, an attorney who learns through the course of representation that a client has committed a crime in the past is bound to keep that information confidential. The duty of confidentiality exists to allow clients to speak openly with their counsel. And that openness would be impossible if an attorney could be compelled to disclose everything that a client has ever admitted to doing. But the analysis shifts when the concern moves from past conduct to future harm. When an attorney possesses confidential information that clearly establishes a client is likely to commit an act resulting in death or substantial bodily harm, the duty of confidentiality and the protection of attorney client privilege must yield to a higher obligation. Under Texas law, attorneys have the discretion to disclose confidential information to prevent a client from committing any criminal act. And when the potential harm rises to the level of death or serious bodily injury, that discretion becomes a mandatory duty to report. As demonstrated by the outcome of this motion hearing, the protection that encourages clients to speak candidly with their attorneys was never designed to take precedence over the prevention of serious harm to others. And when information shared in confidence leads an attorney to believe that someone may be harmed, the duty of confidentiality gives way to allow for the protection of others. Let us know if there's a case or courtroom interaction that you would like us to explore in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to like and subscribe so we can help foster a more informed society.

[00:37:39]Heat. Heat.