United States v. Woodruff case brief summary
383 F.Supp. 696 (E.D. Pa. 1974)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff government, in an effort to seek an indictment against defendant on charges of bail jumping under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3150, moved for a court order to compel defendant's counsel to answer questions about whether defendant was informed of and understood the time and place of his trial. Defendant's counsel argued that the compelled disclosure violated the attorney-client privilege.
DISCUSSION
The court granted plaintiff's motion on the grounds that communications between defendant and his counsel as to the trial date did not involve the subject matter of defendant's legal problem and were thus not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
CONCLUSION
The court granted plaintiff's motion because communications between defendant and his counsel as to trial date did not involve the subject matter of defendant's legal problem and were thus not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
383 F.Supp. 696 (E.D. Pa. 1974)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff, intending to seek an
indictment against defendant on charges of bail jumping under 18
U.S.C.S. § 3150, moved the district court (Pennsylvania) to compel
defendant's counsel to disclose whether defendant was informed of and
understood the time and place of his trial.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff government, in an effort to seek an indictment against defendant on charges of bail jumping under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3150, moved for a court order to compel defendant's counsel to answer questions about whether defendant was informed of and understood the time and place of his trial. Defendant's counsel argued that the compelled disclosure violated the attorney-client privilege.
DISCUSSION
The court granted plaintiff's motion on the grounds that communications between defendant and his counsel as to the trial date did not involve the subject matter of defendant's legal problem and were thus not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
CONCLUSION
The court granted plaintiff's motion because communications between defendant and his counsel as to trial date did not involve the subject matter of defendant's legal problem and were thus not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment