United States v. Schwimmer
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
892 F.2d 237 (1989)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Martin Schwimmer (defendant) was charged with a number of crimes related to investment fraud. His partner, Mario Renda, was also charged. Schwimmer and Renda each hired a law firm to help with their defense. They and their attorneys agreed to cooperate “in all matters of mutual concern related to the investigation.” That cooperation included Renda’s attorney hiring Ralph Glickman, an accountant, to assist in the defense of both Renda and Schwimmer. Schwimmer had a number of confidential conversations with Glickman as his attorney told him that any such conversations were protected by the attorney-client privilege. After Renda’s trial ended, the Assistant U.S. Attorney ordered Glickman to turn over the documents he produced in the formulation of Renda’s defense. At Schwimmer’s trial, the prosecution did not admit into evidence the documents that Glickman had turned over, but Schwimmer claimed that the prosecution used information derived from those documents in building their case against Schwimmer. The prosecution disputed this claim. Schwimmer was convicted. He appealed on the grounds that the prosecution violated the attorney-client privilege by using information derived from Glickman’s reports to build their case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.