In United States v. Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2012) (No. 11-15025), the court held that one party to a joint defense agreement may not unilaterally waive the privilege over statements made by others in the joint defense arrangement.  In this case, Gonzalez and Paiz, husband and wife, were tried separately for insurance fraud.  Paiz was tried first and was convicted. Her attorney, Wilder, did not call Gonzalez to testify.  Gonzalez was later tried, and testified that he had lied to the FBI when he confessed to the couple’s fraud, and he had nothing to do with the fraud.  Paiz filed a section 2255 habeas proceeding alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for, among other reasons, not calling Gonzalez to testify.  The government subpoenaed Wilder to discover communications that Wilder had with Gonzalez’s attorney prior to Paiz’s trial.  The trial court assumed for the sake of argument that there had been a joint defense agreement, and held that Paiz’s assertion of ineffective assistance had waived the attorney-client privilege, including with respect to communications between the defendants’ attorneys.  The appellate court reversed. “[T]he case law is clear that one party to a JDA cannot unilaterally waive the privilege for other holders.”  Here, Gonzalez had done nothing to waive his attorney’s communications with Wilder, and was “an unwilling third-party participant” in the habeas proceeding.  The court concluded that allowing unilateral waiver of privileged communications by a single co-defendant would severely undermine the rationale for the joint defense privilege.