United States v. Doe
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
429 F.3d 450 (2005)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
John Doe (defendant) was a federal law-enforcement officer who was using an informant as part of an investigation. Doe wanted to personally invest in the informant’s business activities, but it was a crime for a federal law-enforcement officer to make that type of personal investment. The potential investment was not part of Doe’s investigation. Doe consulted with an attorney to get advice about how to make the investment, possibly using Doe’s wife’s name to avoid having the investment tied to him and to his job as a law-enforcement officer. Doe then made the investment and received $1000 to $2000 per week from it. The government (plaintiff) began investigating Doe and subpoenaed the attorney to testify before a grand jury. The attorney claimed that the attorney-client privilege prevented him from testifying about his communications with Doe. The government argued that the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applied to these communications and that the attorney could be required to testify. After conducting a sealed hearing, the district court ruled that the crime-fraud exception did not apply and that the attorney could not be forced to testify about attorney-client communications with Doe. The government appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rosenn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.