The opinion
MURPHY, J.
I agree that the prosecutor should have been prohibited from asking the petitioner when he had discussed his testimony with his trial counsel. I write separately, however, to offer a suggestion that would reduce the chances that a conviction will be reversed on the ground that the prosecutor’s cross- *545 examination of the defendant violated the attorney-client privilege.
In Forbes v. State, 175 Md.App. 630, 931 A.2d 528 (2007), the Court of Special Appeals held that “the prosecutor should not have been permitted to ask appellant, in effect, whether, during a confidential communication with his lawyer, appellant (1) confessed that he had committed the robbery, and (2) asked his lawyer to call a defense witness who was prepared to present false testimony.” 175 Md.App. at 636 , 931 A.2d at 532 . Recognizing that the attorney-client privilege does not operate to exclude everything the criminal defendant says to his or her lawyer, the Forbes Court stated:
We therefore hold that Harrison [v. State, 276 Md. 122 , 345 A.2d 830 (1975)] prohibits the prosecutor from cross-examining the defendant about anything that the defendant did— or did not — say to his or her lawyer, unless and until (1) the prosecutor has expressly requested the trial judge’s permission to do so, and (2) after inquiring into “all the surrounding facts and circumstances,” the trial judge has expressly identified “the permissible and the prohibited areas of inquiry.” We also hold that, in a jury trial, both the request and inquiry must take place out of the presence of the jury.
175 Md.App. at 639 , 931 A.2d at 534 .
I would require that this procedure be followed in every criminal case.