United States v. Mejia
655 F.3d 126
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Rodriguez arrested Jan 22, 2009 for conspiracy to distribute/possess with intent to distribute drugs.
- Motion in limine filed Jan 26, 2010 seeking to admit a March 1, 2009 recorded phone call to sister Francia.
- Call was in Spanish; Rodriguez asked sister to relay plea negotiations to his attorney.
- District court admitted the call, ruling no attorney-client privilege due to lack of confidentiality.
- Rodriguez argued privilege and invoked Rule 410; government argued third-party recording destroys confidentiality; jury trial conducted; Rodriguez convicted on two conspiracy counts and one attempt count.
- Court of Appeals affirms admission of the call and denial of privilege, and declines remand under Rule 410.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney-client privilege applies to the recorded call | Rodriguez: privilege applies; sister as necessary intermediary; confidential plea discussions implicate privilege | Rodriguez: third-party recording (BOP) destroyed confidentiality; sister as agent to obtain legal advice | Privilege not established; waiver due to recording; call not confidential |
| Whether Rule 410 requires remand for a ruling on admissibility | Rodriguez: Rule 410 may apply; remand needed | Government: Rule 410 does not apply to this sister-communication | Rule 410 does not apply; no remand necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413 (2d Cir.2007) (confidentiality essential to privilege; structure of privilege)
- United States v. DeFonte, 441 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.2006) (incarcerated clients retain privilege if confidentiality maintained)
- United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, 119 F.3d 210 (2d Cir.1997) (standard of reviewing privilege rulings (abuse of discretion))
- Adlman v. United States, 68 F.3d 1495 (2d Cir.1995) (extension of privilege to necessary intermediaries (when needed for legal advice))
- United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir.1961) (cabined extension of privilege to accountants aiding legal advice)
- United States v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136 (2d Cir.1999) (privilege limited to communications necessary for legal advice)
- United States v. Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72 (2d Cir.1973) (confidentiality assessment in incarcerated context)
- Boria v. Keane, 99 F.3d 492 (2d Cir.1996) (guidance on attorney-client communications and confidentiality)