In re Kozlov

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1979 · Evidence

79 N.J. 232 (1979)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceAttorney-client privilegeJuror misconductContemptclient identityless intrusive sourcejuror biasvoir dire nondisclosure

Facts

After a jury convicted Police Chief Catlett, Kozlov's longtime client told him, on condition of anonymity, that juror Yacovelli had boasted he got even with Catlett for the arrest and prosecution of a member of Yacovelli's family. Kozlov relayed the information to Catlett's defense attorney, who investigated and found a municipal court matter involving a person with the juror's surname and address, and later the record showed an even stronger connection through an arrest involving Catlett's son. Instead of first questioning the juror and the related family member, the trial court conducted in camera hearings directed at forcing Kozlov to identify his client. When Kozlov refused, asserting attorney-client privilege, the trial court held him in contempt.

Issue

Whether Kozlov could be held in contempt for refusing to disclose his client's identity after reporting information suggesting juror bias, when the trial court had not first exhausted less intrusive sources of the same evidence. Also, in the circumstances presented, whether the attorney-client privilege extended to the client's identity.

Rule

In the circumstances of this case, the attorney-client privilege may extend to a client's identity when the client confidentially provides information to expose wrongdoing affecting the administration of justice and the lawyer transmits the information while preserving anonymity. Before piercing any privilege, the court must find a legitimate need, relevance and materiality, and also that the information could not be secured from any less intrusive source.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a criminal appeal in Newark, attorney Daniel Cross tells defense counsel that one of Cross's long-time clients, while seeking legal advice on an unrelated matter, confidentially reported that a seated juror had concealed on voir dire that her brother had recently been arrested by the defendant's task force. Cross passes along the allegation but refuses to identify the client. Without first questioning the juror or the brother, the trial judge orders Cross to disclose the client's name and holds him in contempt when he refuses.

Is the contempt order most likely proper?

Explanation. The majority held that, in these unusual circumstances, a client's identity may be protected when the client confidentially provides information to expose wrongdoing affecting the administration of justice. Even if the evidence is needed and material, the privilege may not be pierced unless the court is satisfied that the information could not be secured from any less intrusive source. Here, questioning the juror and the brother were obvious alternative sources, so contempt would be improper.