United States v. Morton "Mort" H. Franklin
598 F. 2d 954, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13267 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government's receipt of information from a defendant's attorney does not require dismissal of an indictment unless there is a realistic possibility of injury to the defendant or benefit to the state. Furthermore, a defendant waives the attorney-client privilege by voluntarily communicating information to the government, either directly or through an attorney acting on their behalf.
Facts:
- A defendant was involved in arranging financing for what he believed was a legitimate gun operation, which was actually a gun smuggling operation.
- The defendant also faced a separate, unrelated marijuana charge.
- The defendant's attorney, Robert Señor, initiated contact with government agents to negotiate leniency for his client on the marijuana charge.
- During these plea negotiations, Señor offered information about the gun smuggling operation while consistently maintaining his client's innocence in that matter.
- Señor disclosed information regarding the defendant's role in financing, a codefendant's actions, and the defendant’s eventual discovery of the illegal smuggling.
- Señor discussed defense strategy with a personal friend, Edward Ragen, a Customs officer not assigned to the case, who did not communicate this information to his superiors or the prosecution.
- At a later meeting, the defendant himself, through Señor, communicated substantially the same information to the government that Señor had previously disclosed.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a federal district court (trial court) with making a false statement in a loan application and obstruction of justice.
- Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the government had improperly obtained information from his attorney.
- The district court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- Following a trial, the defendant was convicted of the false loan application and obstruction of justice charges.
- The defendant appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's receipt of information from a defendant's attorney, who initiated contact to negotiate leniency for his client, require the dismissal of an indictment where the government did not purposefully infiltrate the defense and the information was not used at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The government's receipt of information from the defendant's attorney does not require dismissal of the indictment because there was no realistic possibility of harm to the defendant or benefit to the government. The court applied the standard from Weatherford v. Bursey, which holds that a conviction is only tainted by such a disclosure if it creates a realistic possibility of injury to the defendant. Here, the defense attorney, Señor, initiated the contact to barter information for leniency, and the government's response was restrained and proper. The government did not purposefully infiltrate the defense camp, as the agent Señor spoke with was a friend not assigned to the case and did not pass along any strategic information. Moreover, the defendant waived any privilege by later communicating the same information himself to the government. Finally, the information Señor provided was cumulative to what the government already knew from other sources and was not introduced at trial, meaning no prejudice occurred.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required for the drastic remedy of dismissing an indictment based on government contact with defense counsel. It clarifies that when the defense initiates the communication for purposes of plea bargaining, claims of improper government intrusion are significantly weakened. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between the remedies of suppression of evidence and dismissal of a case, reserving the latter for situations involving egregious misconduct and demonstrable prejudice. This case serves as a precedent that protects convictions from being overturned due to defense-initiated disclosures, especially when the defendant later waives privilege by confirming the disclosed information.
