United States v. Lee
| Decision Date | 28 February 1901 |
| Citation | 107 F. 702 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. LEE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
George H. Pettit, for the United States.
Jerry A. Wernberg, for Jacob Neu.
On November 7, 1900, one Louis Lee was arraigned before this court upon an indictment theretofore found, charging him with larceny committed in the navy yard, and upon a plea of not guilty the defendant was admitted to bail. On the 12th day of November the United States attorney moved the trial of the indictment, after due notice to the defendant's bondsman and counsel. Thereupon his counsel, Jacob Neu, stated that he was not and could not be prepared to defend the case at said term of court, and a continuance to the succeeding term was for that reason granted. On the 2d day of January, 1901, the government again moved the cause for trial, on due notice to the defendant's bondsman and counsel. Neither the defendant nor Mr. Neu, his counsel, appeared, but Mr. Alfred J. Gilchrist, Mr. Neu's partner, appeared and stated that he did not know where the defendant was or where he could be found; and since that time the proper officer has been unable to execute the bench warrant which was issued by the court for the apprehension of the defendant. It appears that no information of the whereabouts of the defendant is obtainable by the marshal or his assistants, and the court is informed that the bond of the defendant has been paid. It thus appears that the defendant has fled from justice, and that the slightest trace of his going is not discoverable. The United States attorney is investigating by means of the grand jury this sudden and mysterious departure, and is proceeding upon the theory that it was not effected without the aid of others. Who such persons are, who were corruptly privy to this flight, is the information which the grand jury demands. In aid of this investigation Mr. Neu has been subpoenaed, and has answered several questions relating to events, but has declined to answer questions tending to show what man was associated with Lee, in reference to his trial in this court except that it appears from his evidence that he was not retained by Lee himself for the latter's defense, but that a third person arranged the retainer and paid some portion of the counsel fee. Mr. Neu urges that this person in the matter of such meeting became his client, and that whatever communications such person made to him are privileged. It may be the position of the United States attorney that a person so solicitous for the defense of Lee and so intimately associated with his interest as to undertake the retainer and obtaining of counsel, may have such knowledge of the subsequent movements of Lee as would justify the grand jury either in subpoenaing such person, or, upon a proper state of facts, accusing him by indictment with participation in such departure; or it may be the position of the district attorney that the defendant's counsel gained knowledge from the man tending to show that it was the latter's intention to assist the defendant to escape from the jurisdiction of this court, or to conceal himself from the officers thereof. The questions asked by the district attorney which the witness declined to answer are as follows:
After stating his relation to the bondsman, that he did not know that Lee was going to run away, and that neither the bondsman nor Lee ever paid him any money, the witness declined to answer the following question:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kozlov, Matter of
...Commissioner and it was the client's name that deserved and needed protection (see Elliott v. United States, 23 App.D.C. 456; United States v. Lee, C.C., 107 F. 702), for fear of reprisals, etc. Since there was no reason to doubt that the informant was a client of appellant, it was unnecess......
-
Baird v. Koerner
...shaped and the balance struck accordingly."9 The reason for the striking of the balance, as was done in such cases as United States v. Lee, C.C.E.D.N.Y.1901, 107 F. 702;10 Mauch v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 1940, 113 F.2d 555;11 and Tomlinson v. United States, 1937, 68 App.D.C. 652, 93 F.2d 652......
-
Grand Jury Proceedings, In re
...States, 5 Cir. 1942, 131 F.2d 220, 221 (dicta; witness-client may not refuse to disclose identity of his attorney); United States v. Lee, C.C.E.D.N.Y.1901, 107 F. 702 (fugitive's counsel ordered to disclose to grand jury identity and address of third party who paid his fee; lawyer claimed t......
-
Application of Doe
...1 The third parties would have to be clients in order to come within the purview of the attorney-client privilege. See United States v. Lee, 107 F. 702 (C.C.E.D.N.Y.1901). In Jones, the government's claim that the third parties were not clients was apparently raised for the first time on ap......