In re Grand Jury Proceedings Request for Compulsion Order Against John Doe Richard Roe and Corporation X
In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS Request for Compulsion Order Against John Doe; Richard Roe and Corporation X, Appellants
Opinion
HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge:
This case involves the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The district court issued an order compelling John Doe, the attorney for Richard Roe and Corporation X, to testify before the grand jury because it found that the government had made a prima facie showing that the crime/fraud exception was applicable. The district court based its decision on an in camera review of a document prepared by an Internal Revenue Service Special Agent which summarized the testimony before the grand jury. We have examined the document in camera.
It contains evidence of serious crimes committed by Richard Roe and other persons. While it is unclear from the document whether the attorney knew of the criminal activity, * it is clear that the attorney was hired to further the criminal activity. Based on our review of the document, we find that the government has made out a prima facie case that the crime/fraud exception is applicable.
See also In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073 (4th Cir. 1981).
We find no due process violation in the procedures used by the district court. In light of the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s order.
AFFIRMED.
* The lawyer’s position is that he did not know. He wishes to appear before the grand jury to clear his name.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that the district court's in camera examination of evidence did not violate due process)
-
(requiring a prima facie showing of a violation sufficiently serious to defeat the work product privilege and some valid rela tionship between the work product under subpoena and the prima facie violation)
-
(court relied on summarized grand jury testimony prepared by IRS agent)
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury September Term, 1991. United States of America v. Under Seal Under Seal, and Under Seal Under Seal, in Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury September Term, 1991
- Grand Jury Subpoena. United States of America v. Under Seal
- United States v. Under Seal
- In re Antitrust Grand Jury
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of John Doe
- United States v. Gotti
Most recent
- United States v. Lentz
- United States v. Cohn
- Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury September Term, 1991. United States of America v. Under Seal Under Seal, and Under Seal Under Seal, in Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury September Term, 1991
- United States v. Under Seal
- United States v. Gotti
- Grand Jury Subpoena. United States of America v. Under Seal
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.