Epstein Secrets

f Connecticut and District of Columbia, and is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, District of Columbia Circuit, and Federal Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbi

strict of Columbia, and is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, District of Columbia Circuit, and Federal Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. EFTA00728148

would effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

would effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

f- fense, which applies? United States, ev rel. Harris' Daniels, 279 Fed. 844 (2nd Cir.I992), provides guidance on this issue. In Ex. rel. Harris, the Second Circuit was faced with a potential conflict between two senten- cing provisions, one which permitted " 'all sen- tences' of summary court-martial [to] be ca

9 Page 9 of 27 Westiaw. 495 F.3d 536 495 F.3d 536 (Cite as: 495 F.3d 536) U.S. II. Johnson C.A.7 (Ind.),2007. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Charles M. JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-3968. Argued April 10, 2007. Decided Jul

ould effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. -19- EF

2001) (information regarding the receipt of attorney's fees is not protected). In Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, 68 F.3d 193 (7th Cir. 1995), the Seventh Circuit discussed specific questions asked of an attorney during his testimony before the grand jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to