Friday, April 21, 2006

How NOT to Respond to a Subpoena

A Third Circuit opinion discusses the application of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege in an investigation that shows how a subpoena recipient should not respond unless the person wants to move into the "target" category in a hurry.  In In re: Grand Jury Investigation (here), the court reviewed a challenge to the district court's order to an attorney to testify about his communication with his client -- Jane Doe -- about the content of a grand jury subpoena for e-mail records.  Doe was the executive director of an Organization that was affiliated with the primary target of the investigation involving possible corruption of a public official, and her attorney forwarded to her a grand jury subpoena seeking e-mail records of the Organization.  The government apparently was unsatisfied with the response, setting in motion a chain of events that led to the attorney being called to testify before the grand jury:

On February 10, 2005, pursuant to an agreement among the parties, an FBI computer technician went to the Organization’s place of business and "imaged" the hard drive on Jane Doe’s computer. The Government thus made an exact copy of the contents of the hard drive, including deleted email files. It uncovered numerous stored messages which could be construed to show a conscious effort by the Organization’s staff to destroy emails.

Concerned about the potential obstruction of justice by Jane Doe and others at the Organization, the Government issued a subpoena duces tecum to Attorney on March 1, 2005. It sought to compel grand jury testimony regarding his discussions with Jane Doe as to her compliance (or apparent non-compliance) with the prior subpoenas for production of the Organization's e-mails.

The Third Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence of a pending or future crime by Doe, namely obstruction of justice, for not preventing the deletion of the e-mails.  The court upheld the district court's order directing the attorney to testify.

Interestingly, the court cited to the Second Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Quattrone as support for the proposition that failing to stop the destruction of e-mails after learning of a subpoena for those records can constitute obstruction.  The court stated: "The Government’s position in this case is that the communication between Attorney and Jane Doe provided her with knowledge of the type of material the Government sought, comparable to the documents relating to the IPO allocation process sought in Quattrone."  While the conviction in Quattrone was overturned due to faulty jury instructions, the Second and Third Circuit decisions do show that the handling of e-mail can rise to the level of obstruction of justice, showing once again how important this type of evidence is in white collar crime investigations and prosecutions. (ph)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2006/04/how_not_to_resp.html

Corruption, Grand Jury, Privileges | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d8345ac86f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How NOT to Respond to a Subpoena:

» Subpoena catching an attorney from c64allstars
The following blog entry shows the value of attornies and indivdual rights in the USA. This scenario wouldnt be possible in Germany. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2006/04/how_not_to_resp.html ... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 24, 2006 11:12:48 PM

Comments

The subject of this investigation is well known in the Philadephia area, as is the identity of the target, a powerful state senator. That background is discussed, and the identity of the witness and "organization" revealed in a story in Saturday's Phila Inquirer. The identity of the lawyer whose testimony was compelled has not been disclosed in the news, I believe.

Posted by: Peter G | Apr 23, 2006 10:25:07 AM

Post a comment