Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

United States v. Hammad

858 F.2d 834 (2d. Cir. 1988)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

United States v. Hammad

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

858 F.2d 834 (2d. Cir. 1988)

Facts

The New York State Department of Social Services audited brothers Taiseer and Eid Hammad (respondents), owners of the Hammad Department Store, for bilking Medicaid out of $400,0000 in reimbursements claimed for special, orthopedic footwear while actually selling ordinary, non-therapeutic shoes. The Hammads challenged the determination by submitting false invoices purportedly from Wallace Goldstein, a shoe supplier. Meanwhile, the store caught fire under suspicious circumstances. When Goldstein told the prosecutor that the invoices the Hammads submitted were false, investigators suspected arson, intended to conceal the fraud by destroying actual sales records. Goldstein agreed to cooperate, and falsely told the Hammads he had been subpoenaed by the grand jury to testify and produce actual sales records for comparison. Taiseer did not deny the fraud and urged Goldstein to conceal it. A few days later, investigators recorded a meeting where Hammad strategized how to avoid compliance after Goldstein showed him a sham subpoena. Before trial, Taiseer asked the court to suppress the recordings on the ground that the prosecutor violated Rule 4.2, which prohibits a lawyer from communicating with a party represented by counsel (like ABA Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104(A)(1)). Taiseer claimed the prosecutor had communicated directly with him, using Goldstein as his alter-ego, after the prosecutor knew Taiseer had a lawyer. The prosecution argued that the rule either did not apply to criminal investigations or applied only after indictment. The trial judge found the prosecutor violated the rule and suppressed the recordings. The prosecution appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kaufman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 606,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership