Matter of Nackson
New Jersey Supreme Court
555 A.2d 1101 (1989)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
In 1978, Mark Meltzer was arrested in New Jersey and posted bail. A grand jury indicted Meltzer on marijuana-possession charges, and Meltzer’s attorney, Joseph Nackson (defendant) eventually tried to negotiate a plea agreement for Meltzer. The prosecutor’s office (plaintiff) lost track of Meltzer. In 1987, Nackson informed the prosecutor’s office that Meltzer had become a legitimate businessman in the Chicago area. After Nackson refused to disclose further information about Meltzer, the government subpoenaed Nackson to appear before a grand jury. The trial court denied Nackson’s motion to quash the subpoena but ruled that Nackson could refuse to answer any questions protected by attorney-client privilege. Nackson provided the grand jury with some information, but asserted attorney-client privilege regarding Meltzer’s contact information and the advice he provided to Meltzer. The trial court agreed that Nackson’s advice to Meltzer was protected by attorney-client privilege but held that Nackson must disclose Meltzer’s contact information because nondisclosure would obstruct justice. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court must determine whether there were less-intrusive ways to obtain Meltzer’s contact information. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for certification. At some point during the appellate proceedings, Meltzer was arrested in Florida.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Hern, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.