United States v. Hill
2:16-cr-00210
| S.D.W. Va | Feb 7, 2018Background
- Movant Jermain Santell Hill filed a §2255 motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel by Attorneys John Carr and Gary Collias, alleging waived pretrial hearing, admission of prejudicial evidence, coerced plea, and failure to address mental disability.
- The United States moved for an order directing Movant to execute a privilege waiver and directing former counsel to provide information to respond to the §2255 claims.
- The court reviewed applicable professional ethics rules (WV and ABA Model Rules) recognizing narrow exceptions permitting disclosure to respond to allegations concerning counsel’s representation.
- The court considered federal precedent that ineffective-assistance claims can effect a subject-matter waiver of attorney-client privilege and Rule 502 principles on the scope of waiver.
- The court declined to require a blanket written waiver from Movant but ordered Carr and Collias to file within 30 days affidavits and relevant file materials limited to what is reasonably necessary to respond to the §2255 claims, with redactions permitted for irrelevant matters.
- The court entered a protective limitation: disclosed privileged material is restricted to use in the §2255 proceeding only, and cannot be used in other federal or state proceedings absent further court order or Movant’s written waiver; the court also granted an abeyance pending receipt/review of the affidavits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Movant’s filing of ineffective-assistance claim waives attorney-client privilege | Hill intended to waive privilege as to communications relevant to his ineffective-assistance allegations | Government seeks a formal written waiver and access to counsel’s communications to respond | Court: filing effects a subject-matter waiver as to communications necessary to respond, but no blanket written waiver required |
| Whether court may order former counsel to disclose privileged communications | Hill argues privilege limits disclosure; contends confidentiality protected absent informed consent | United States argues access to counsel communications is necessary to defend §2255 claim | Court: may order counsel to submit affidavits and necessary documents under protective limitations; disclosure permitted to extent reasonably necessary |
| Scope and method of permissible disclosure | Hill likely seeks narrow, court-supervised handling and redactions for irrelevant matters | Government seeks access but court-supervised, not ex parte, disclosure | Court: requires affidavits and attachments limited to matters raised; redactions allowed for nonpertinent information; disclosure confined to this proceeding |
| Whether disclosed privileged material can be used in other proceedings | Hill fears prosecution using past communications against him in other cases | Government did not seek unfettered use outside §2255 | Court: protective order prohibits use outside this §2255 proceeding absent further court order or Movant’s written waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claim waives privilege as to related communications)
- United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2010) (protective orders can limit subsequent use of disclosed privileged information)
- United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009) (discusses waiver in counsel-misconduct contexts)
- In re Lott, 424 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (addresses waiver implications for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2001) (recognizes subject-matter waiver in similar contexts)
- Tasby v. United States, 504 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1974) (early decision on privilege waiver when defendant alleges counsel ineffectiveness)