In re Grand Jury Subpoena
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
204 F.3d 516 (2000)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
A grand jury was investigating whether Erskine “Pee Wee” Hartwell and other people were operating an open-air drug market at property located at 37 Forrester Street in Washington, D.C. (the property). The record owner of the property was Daniel C. Quispehuman, and the government believed this was a straw owner. A nonprofit community organization, Bellview Improvement Council Inc. (BIC), retained an attorney, Mark S. Davies, to stop the drug activity at the property. Davies sent letters to Quispehuman, demanding he stop the drug activity and threatening to sue. An attorney, Mark Rochon, responded, saying that he would be clarifying the owner of the property, that his client hoped to retitle the property, and requesting two weeks to do so to avoid needless litigation. A few months later, the government served a grand-jury subpoena on Rochon, seeking several documents and testimony regarding the identity of Rochon’s client. Rochon refused to identify his client, claiming his identity was subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
