Epstein Project

EFTA00032862.pdf

Type
pdf
Source set
data-set-8

Original source

Extracted text

U.S. v. Neill, 952 F.Supp. 834 (1997) 
4ii Interference in Attorney-Client Relationship 
Tal KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment 
Declined to Follow by U.S. v. Taylor, DIvIc., February 9, 2011 
952 F.Supp• 834 
United States District Court, 
District of Columbia. 
UNITED STATES of America 
v. 
Denis M. NEILL, James P. Neill, Defendants. 
Crim. Action No. 95-0323 (JHG). 
Jan. 17, 1997. 
Synopsis 
Defendants charged with tax offenses moved to dismiss 
due to government's invasion of their attorney-client 
privilege. Government opposed motion. The District 
Court, Joyce Hens Green, J., held that: (1) government's 
affirmative decision to invoke "taint team" procedures 
with regard to handling potentially privileged documents 
was per se intentional intrusion upon defendants' 
attorney-client privilege, but (2) government successfully 
rebutted presumption of harm arising from its decision to 
use "taint team" procedures. 
Motion to dismiss denied; motion to supplement record 
denied. 
West Headnotes (14) 
Ill 
Criminal Law 
0-Interference in Attorney-Client Relationship 
121 
Substantial questions of fundamental fairness 
are raised when, in connection with criminal 
prosecution, government invades accused's 
attorney-client 
privilege. 
U.S.C.A. 
Const.Amend. 6. 
1 Cases that cite this headnote 
Criminal Law 
For purposes of constitutional violation arising 
out 
of 
government's 
intrusion 
upon 
attorney-client privilege, it matters little whether 
intrusion occurred prior to initiation of formal 
adversary proceedings, inasmuch as right to fair 
trial 
may 
be 
crippled 
by 
government 
interference with attorney-client privilege long 
before formal commencement of criminal 
proceeding. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6. 
I Cases that cite this headnote 
131 
Criminal Law 
4.-Interference in Attorney-Client Relationship 
Not 
every 
government 
intrusion 
on 
attorney-client 
privilege 
is 
constitutional 
violation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6. 
3 Cases that cite this head…

Open in the interactive archive →