Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Government Response in Weyhrauch Hyde Act Case

The Weyhrauch case has had a long journey - but it is not over yet.  It went to the Supreme Court, along with Jeff Skilling's case. (see here). Bruce Weyhrauch came back and plead to a misdemeanor in state court - not federal court.  He then filed a Hyde Act Amendment motion to recover his attorney fees.  The government has now filed it's Hyde Act response.  A couple of sentences in this response are fascinating:

  • "[T]he Hyde Amendment does not provide for discovery, and none is appropriate here. (p. 1)
  • "The fact that Weyhrauch pleaded guilty to a state misdemeanor as opposed to the federal crimes for which he was originally indicted is irrelevant." (p. 6)
  • "...Weyhrauch fails to specify how the government's position in this litigation has been vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith ...The closest Weyhrauch comes to making an argument on this point is claiming that an FBI agent testified falsely before the grand jury ..." (p. 7)

See also Richard Mauer, Anchorage Daily News, Justice Department rejects Weyhrauch reimbursement WEYHRAUCH: Prosecutors say guilt admission negates his claim.

  (esp)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2011/05/government-response-in-weyhrauch-hyde-act-case.html

Fraud, Judicial Opinions, Prosecutions, Prosecutors | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef014e88a94417970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Government Response in Weyhrauch Hyde Act Case:

Comments

Wow - the inference that an FBI agent testifying falsely is insignificant crosses beyond obtuse rebuttal into the avenue inane!

Posted by: laser haas | May 25, 2011 1:32:03 PM

Why should "false testimony" by an FBI agent constitute "bad faith" as a basis for Hyde Act damages?
If it were, it would open the floodgates and make the government bailout look penny-ante.

Posted by: Lawrence Goldman | May 26, 2011 9:28:52 AM

Post a comment