Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

A medical device company that manufactures spinal devices was indicted, along with its CEO and CFO, for allegedly paying bribes to surgeons through a sham consulting program in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The indictment claimed the surgeons did not provide bona fide consulting services, but were paid to use and order the company’s devices in surgeries covered by federal health care programs. The company’s CFO, who is not a shareholder but is one of only two officers, allegedly calculated these payments based on the volume and value of surgeries performed with the company’s devices. During the development of the consulting program, the company retained outside counsel to provide legal opinions on the agreements’ compliance with health care law, and those opinions were distributed to the surgeons.After the grand jury returned the indictment, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts addressed whether the CFO’s plan to argue at trial that the involvement of outside counsel negated his criminal intent would effect an implied waiver of the company’s attorney-client privilege. The district court initially found that if the CFO or CEO invoked an “involvement-of-counsel” defense, it would waive the corporation’s privilege over communications with counsel. Following dismissal of charges against the company, the district court focused on whether the officers collectively could waive the privilege, concluded they could, and ruled that the CFO’s planned defense would constitute an implied waiver, allowing disclosure of certain privileged communications to the government. The district court stayed its order pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court’s waiver order and remanded. The Court of Appeals held that (1) the record was insufficient to determine whether the CFO alone had authority to waive the company’s privilege, and (2) not every involvement-of-counsel defense necessitates a waiver. The appellate court directed the district court to reassess the issue in light of changed circumstances and to consider less intrusive remedies before finding an implied waiver. View "United States v. SpineFrontier, Inc." on Justia Law

Donald J. Trump filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against dozens of defendants, including Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, several law firms, and individuals, alleging that they conspired to spread false claims of his collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump asserted multiple claims, including two under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and three under Florida law, such as injurious falsehood and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution. He alleged that these actions caused him substantial financial harm and loss of business opportunities.After extensive pleadings, the district court dismissed Trump’s amended complaint with prejudice, holding that his federal racketeering claims were untimely and legally insufficient, and that his state law claims either failed to state a claim or were also untimely. The court found the complaint to be a “shotgun pleading” and cited numerous factual inaccuracies and implausible legal theories. The court also dismissed claims against certain defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, but did so with prejudice. Subsequently, the district court imposed sanctions on Trump and his attorneys for filing frivolous claims and pleadings, based both on its inherent authority and Rule 11, and denied Trump’s motions for reconsideration and to disqualify the judge.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s orders. The appellate court held that Trump’s racketeering claims were untimely and meritless, and that his state law claims failed for both procedural and substantive reasons. However, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over one defendant, Orbis, and therefore vacated the dismissal with prejudice as to Orbis, remanding with instructions to dismiss those claims without prejudice. The sanctions orders and other rulings were affirmed, and requests for appellate sanctions were denied. View "Trump v. Clinton" on Justia Law

A Black man was charged with multiple offenses, including felony false imprisonment, after a domestic violence incident in which his girlfriend alleged he struck her and prevented her from leaving his car. Witnesses observed the girlfriend attempting to exit the moving vehicle and heard shouting. The girlfriend initially told police that the defendant hit her and threatened her if she tried to leave, but later recanted, claiming she fabricated the story out of anger. The prosecution introduced both her initial statements and her recantation at trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of felony false imprisonment and other related charges, but acquitted him of attempted robbery. He admitted a prior conviction, and the trial court imposed a total sentence of nine years and four months, including time for an unrelated prior case.During trial, the defendant’s counsel raised concerns under the California Racial Justice Act (RJA) regarding the racial composition of the jury venire and the prosecution’s peremptory challenge of a Black prospective juror. The Santa Clara County Superior Court denied these motions, finding no evidence of bias or violation of the RJA. At sentencing, the court made comments referencing the defendant’s race and background, but defense counsel did not object to these statements under the RJA.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the defendant forfeited his RJA claims on appeal by failing to object to the trial court’s statements at the appropriate time. The court also found no merit in the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as there was a conceivable tactical reason for not objecting. Additionally, the appellate court determined that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on misdemeanor false imprisonment, as there was no substantial evidence to support that lesser offense. The judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed. View "People v. Wagstaff" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, all arising from a gang-related shooting in Visalia, California. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant was a member of the North Side Visalia gang and that he shot individuals he believed to be rival gang members, resulting in one death and serious injury to another. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on expert testimony to establish the defendant’s gang membership and the gang-related nature of the crimes, as well as evidence of prior offenses by the defendant and other gang members. The defense argued that the shooting was not premeditated or gang-motivated, but rather stemmed from a personal dispute, and presented evidence that the defendant had renounced gang affiliation.The Tulare County Superior Court denied the defendant’s pretrial motion to recuse the entire District Attorney’s Office after his former defense attorney joined that office, finding that an effective ethical wall had been established. At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, found true the gang enhancements and the gang-murder special circumstance, and returned a death verdict. The trial court entered judgment accordingly.On automatic appeal, the Supreme Court of California reviewed the case. The court held that, due to subsequent legal developments—specifically, its decision in People v. Sanchez and legislative amendments to Penal Code section 186.22 by Assembly Bill 333—the evidence was insufficient to support the gang enhancements and the gang-murder special circumstance. As a result, the court reversed the gang-related findings and the death judgment. The court also ordered a limited remand to allow the defendant to further develop his claim that his trial counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right of autonomy over the defense, as articulated in McCoy v. Louisiana. The convictions and death judgment were reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "P. v. Cardenas" on Justia Law

The appellant was represented by an attorney in a criminal contempt proceeding after allegedly violating a civil protective order. During the course of representation, the appellant twice made statements to his attorney threatening to kill the Assistant Attorney General prosecuting his case, including specific language and gestures indicating an intent to cause harm. The attorney, disturbed by these threats, initially sought to withdraw from representation and later disclosed the threats to the court after being ordered to do so. The attorney subsequently testified before a grand jury and at trial regarding the threats, which led to the appellant being charged and convicted by a jury of threatening a public official and obstruction of justice.Following conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant challenged the admissibility of his attorney’s testimony, arguing that the statements were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that the threats were not made for the purpose of seeking legal advice and thus were not privileged. On appeal, a division of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals initially vacated the convictions, holding that the statements were privileged and their admission was not harmless error. The United States successfully petitioned for en banc review, and the full court vacated the division’s decision, limiting the scope of review to the attorney-client privilege issue.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications that themselves constitute criminal threats to cause death or serious bodily harm. The court reasoned that such threats are an abuse of the attorney-client relationship and fall outside the privilege, regardless of whether the technical elements of the privilege are otherwise met. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s admission of the attorney’s testimony and remanded the case for consideration of the appellant’s remaining arguments. View "Moore v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was shot five times in his apartment parking lot and, in the chaos, dropped his black iPhone and a satchel. His girlfriend took the satchel but left the phone, which was later recovered by police near some shrubs. The police also seized a different (white) iPhone from the defendant at the hospital. The black iPhone remained in police evidence for over two years, until it became relevant in a separate federal drug investigation. The government ultimately used data from the black iPhone, along with other evidence, to charge the defendant with drug trafficking, firearm offenses, and money laundering.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon presided over the trial. Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence from the black iPhone, arguing that he retained a privacy interest in the device and its data, and also sought recusal of the district judge due to her prior service as U.S. Attorney when he was prosecuted for unrelated charges over fifteen years earlier. The district court denied both motions, finding that the defendant had abandoned the black iPhone and thus lacked standing to challenge its search, and that recusal was not warranted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s finding that the defendant had abandoned his privacy interest in the black iPhone, holding that the circumstances—dropping the phone while fleeing after being shot—did not show intent to abandon the device or its data. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the suppression motion because federal agents obtained a warrant and searched the phone within a reasonable period. The court also affirmed the denial of the recusal motion, concluding that a reasonable person would not question the judge’s impartiality under these facts. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "USA V. HUNT" on Justia Law

Michael G. Carson was convicted by a jury in the Emmet Circuit Court of multiple charges, including safebreaking, larceny, and conspiracy, after being accused of stealing money and personal property from his neighbor, Don Billings. Billings had allowed Carson and his girlfriend, Brandie DeGroff, access to his house to help sell items online, but later discovered that valuable items and cash were missing. Carson was arrested, and his cell phone was seized and searched, revealing incriminating text messages. Carson's defense counsel moved to suppress these messages, arguing the seizure of the phone without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, but the motion was denied.Carson was sentenced to various prison terms for each conviction. He appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the search warrant's adequacy. The Court of Appeals reversed his convictions, ruling the search warrant was too broad and the good-faith exception did not apply. They also found trial counsel ineffective for not seeking exclusion of the phone's contents based on the warrant's broadness. The prosecution appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the search warrant was insufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment, as it allowed a general search of the phone's contents without meaningful limitations. However, the Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, concluding that Carson's counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient given the evolving nature of Fourth Amendment law regarding digital data. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment on this point and remanded the case for consideration of Carson's remaining issues. View "People Of Michigan v. Carson" on Justia Law

Kenin Edwards was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for tax fraud after a series of procedural complications. Edwards, who was represented by four different attorneys throughout the process, delayed his trial multiple times before pleading guilty. After his guilty plea, he fired his final attorney, decided to represent himself, recanted his admission of guilt, sought to vacate his plea, and filed numerous frivolous motions. The government, which had initially agreed to recommend a five-month split sentence, sought a 21-month sentence due to Edwards's conduct.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois handled the case. Edwards's initial attorneys withdrew due to a breakdown in strategy, and his subsequent attorney was disqualified due to a conflict of interest. Edwards then retained a fourth attorney, with whom he eventually reached a plea agreement. However, Edwards later discharged this attorney as well and chose to represent himself. The district court conducted a Faretta hearing to ensure Edwards's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. Despite Edwards's numerous pro se filings and attempts to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court denied his motions and sentenced him to 21 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Edwards argued that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court disqualified his attorney and allegedly forced him to proceed pro se at sentencing. He also claimed the government breached the plea agreement by recommending a higher sentence. The Seventh Circuit dismissed Edwards's appeal, finding that he had waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement. The court held that Edwards's claims did not fall within the exceptions to the appeal waiver and that the government did not breach the plea agreement. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Dante Small faced charges of battery and two counts of attempted murder for hitting one police officer with a car and narrowly missing another. He claimed that his trial attorney misadvised him about his sentencing exposure, leading him to reject a plea offer and proceed to trial. An Illinois jury convicted him on all counts, and the trial judge sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of 40 years in prison. Small then sought federal habeas relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Small's attorney indicated that Small wanted to negotiate a plea agreement. During a pretrial hearing, the prosecutor mentioned a 20-year plea offer, which was rejected. Small was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 40 years. He filed a pro se post-conviction petition, arguing that his counsel misinformed him about the sentencing range and that he would have accepted a plea if properly advised. The state trial court denied his petition, and the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed, finding that the pretrial transcript contradicted Small's claims. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied his petition for leave to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the state court made an unreasonable determination of fact by concluding that the pretrial transcript contradicted Small's claims about being misadvised on sentencing exposure. The Seventh Circuit held that Small was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop the factual record regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. View "Small v. Woods" on Justia Law

Kristopher Birtcher, experiencing a mental health crisis, was reported to law enforcement by a Hobby Lobby manager. Birtcher, unarmed and not threatening anyone, was detained by sheriff’s deputies. During the detention, Birtcher attempted to flee but was subdued by multiple deputies who restrained him in a prone position, applying bodyweight pressure to his back. Despite Birtcher’s pleas that he could not breathe, the deputies maintained the restraint, and Birtcher eventually stopped moving and died from asphyxiation and sudden cardiac arrest.In the Superior Court of San Diego County, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no triable issues of material fact regarding the excessive force claim. The court concluded that the deputies’ actions were in accordance with their training and that Birtcher’s restraint was proper. The court also ruled that plaintiff failed to establish a legal basis for the negligent training claim against Sheriff William D. Gore.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that there were indeed triable issues of material fact regarding the excessive force used by the deputies. The appellate court found that the evidence, including expert testimony, suggested that the deputies’ use of bodyweight pressure on Birtcher while he was restrained in a prone position could be considered excessive force. The court also held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the negligent training claim against Sheriff Gore, as there was a statutory basis for the claim and evidence suggesting his involvement in the training policies.The appellate court reversed the judgment in favor of all defendants and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "A.B. v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law