Grand Jury Subpoena, In re
| Decision Date | 13 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-5344,84-5344 |
| Citation | 788 F.2d 1511 |
| Parties | In re GRAND JURY SUBPOENA. Donald I. BIERMAN, Witness-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Jon May, Linda Collins-Hertz, Lawrence H. Sharf, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Benedict P. Kuehne, Miami, Fla., for witness-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before KRAVITCH and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and THOMAS *, Senior District Judge.
Our discussion of the "last link" doctrine in Section II of our opinion reported at 765 F.2d 1014, 1019 (11th Cir.1985) was an alternative holding and, therefore, was not determinative of our disposition of the case. On petition for rehearing, we vacate section II, 765 F.2d at 1018-19, and insert the following:
II. Attorney-Client Privilege
The district court denied the government's motion to compel Bierman to answer the last grand jury question on the ground that the information sought is privileged.
The burden of proof is upon Bierman, as the party invoking the attorney-client privilege, to establish (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship and (2) the confidential nature of the information sought. In re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Freeman, 708 F.2d 1571, 1575 (11th Cir.1983). It is undisputed that an attorney-client relationship existed between Bierman and the client. Thus, we focus upon the nature of the information sought by the grand jury.
In United States v. Clemons, 676 F.2d 124, 125 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), the court held that "[a]n attorney's message to his client concerning the date of trial is not a privileged communication." 3 The government argues that under Clemons, Bierman must disclose whether he communicated the surrender date to the client. Clemons does not, however, apply to this case.
United States v. Freeman, 519 F.2d 67, 68 (9th Cir.1975) is not to the contrary. The evidence sought to be elicited from the defendant's attorney in Freeman was not protected under the attorney-client privilege because "[i]t simply related to whether [the attorney] had advised his client of the court's order to appear." 4 The challenged question here asks more than whether Bierman gave the client notice of the surrender date. The question asked: What did you say to or tell your client about the notice to surrender? It takes only a little imagination to recognize the numerous possible answers that would involve legal advice of the most sensitive nature. Communications between an attorney and his client made for the purpose of securing legal advice are protected under the attorney-client privilege. In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Twist), 689 F.2d 1351, 1352 (11th Cir.1982).
If the government wanted to know only whether Bierman had advised his client of the surrender date, it should have asked him that directly and precisely. We note that after the district court's ruling, the government did not call Bierman before the grand jury to answer the narrower question of whether he informed the client of the surrender date. 5 We agree with the district court: The information sought is privileged. 6
AFFIRMED.
* Honorable Daniel H. Thomas, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
3 Decisions of the Fifth Circuit Unit B rendered after September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit until overruled by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Williams
...v. Innella, 821 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir.1987); In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Bierman), 765 F.2d 1014 (11th Cir.1985), vacated in part, 788 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir.1986); In re Grand Jury Investigation (Harvey), 769 F.2d 1485 (11th Cir. 1985); In re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Freeman, 708 F.2d......
-
Grand Jury Investigation, In re
... ... Before JOHNSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge ... JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: ... This case concerns an appeal from an order by the district court compelling testimony pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. We affirm ... Glen Schroeder is the target of a grand jury investigation into charges of tax evasion. Todd Kliston, an accountant and an attorney, prepared Schroeder's income tax returns for several of the years under investigation. Consequently, the grand jury subpoenaed ... ...
-
U.S. v. Gray
... ... Tornay v. United States, 840 F.2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir.1988); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas (Hirsch), 803 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir.1986), modified, 817 F.2d 64 (1987). "The ... by the privilege." Gray relies upon the "last link doctrine." In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Bierman), 765 F.2d 1014, 1018-19 (11th Cir.1985), vacated in part on reh'g, 788 F.2d 1511 (1986) ... ...
-
In re Duque
... ... information as part of a determination of the subpoenas' reasonableness; and that the subpoena compliance procedure should be modified so as to require, prior to deposition, appellee to submit a ... Motion, the Court embraces the rationale of the Court\'s opinion in the case styled In Re: Grand Jury Proceedings (Rabin), 896 F.2d 1267 (11th Cir.1990). Vacated 1990 WL 20033 1990 U.S.App ... ...
-
What To Do When A Client Receives A Federal Grand Jury Subpoena
...574 (1976) (recognizing right of grand jury witness to invoke privilege against self-incrimination); In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Bierman), 788 F.2d 1511,1512 (11th Cir. 1986) (upholding assertion of attorney-client privilege in grand jury); In re Witness before Grand Jury, 791 F.2d 234, 236-......
-
What to Do When a Client Receives a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena
...574 (1976) (recognizing right of grand jury witness to invoke privilege against self-incrimination); In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Bierman), 788 F.2d 1511,1512 (11th Cir. 1986) (upholding assertion of attorney-client privilege in grand jury); In re Witness before Grand Jury, 791 F.2d 234, 236-......