4 ms·

Notwithstanding Counsel for the Defense claiming it was both a US Attorney and FBI practice, the facts suggest the prosecutors actually did the right thing and

Notwithstanding Counsel for the Defense claiming it was both a US Attorney and FBI practice, the facts suggest the prosecutors actually did the right thing and immediately upon learning about the FBI Agent's copying of documentation, they disclosed the information to the Defense and called for an outside investigation. >“What remedies, if any, are available to the court were the court to find that the described conduct in defendant Schapiro’s motion is a systemic, consistent and/or pervasive practice of or on behalf of the United States Attorney’s Office?” Even though, based on the limited facts, it suggests the Defense doesn't have proof anyone at the US Attorney Office was involved, the Judge is taking the allegations so serious (which they are, even if just as to a rouge FBI Agent), that she is saying lets assume everything is true...lets get it out on the record now what powers the Court has, then we can get into the evidentiary hearing...that is awesome.

hackuser 10y ago
> the facts suggest We don't know the facts, only what one side or the other claims.
- xviia 10y ago
  Often there are things that "are not in dispute", i.e. both sides agree. That's pretty close to a definition of a fact. In this case, there is no disagreement that the FBI had CD's containing documents from the defense.
- rosser 10y ago
  When both sides of a case "stipulate" to something, as appears to be the case here, for legal purposes, that's about as factual as you're going to get.
zaroth 10y ago
It wasn't limited to just a single agent, Imaging Universe (the government contracted mandated provider of copying services for discovered documents) admits to doing this since 2006 at the request of the FBI. The US Attorney disclosed, at least in this case, the defense-selected documents were used to help prepare government expert witnesses. Woah...
- will_brown 10y ago
  >It wasn't limited to just a single agent, Imaging Universe (the government contracted mandated provider of copying services for discovered documents) admits to doing this since 2006 at the request of the FBI. Definitely that is what the defense is arguing, but is it true/can it be proved? I read the admission to mean just the 1 Agent: “The U.S. Attorney’s Office has admitted that Agent Deanne Lindsey had been receiving copies of the CDs and had been keeping the duplicate CDs in a folder as she received them,” On second reading, I think I see what the Government response to the Motion will be based this little excerpt: >"The government’s Thursday night response acknowledged that Imaging Universe did supply the FBI with duplicate CDs of what the company had copied for Schapiro’s defense team, but said the discs “were never requested by any agent, prosecutor or anyone else on the government’s behalf.”" I think what they will argue in Court is that the Contractor gave them (US Attorney and/or FBI) attorney-client privileged documents in error and they didn't do anything wrong because they were not requested by the Government and as soon as the prosecutors learned what the Contractor did they disclosed it. They might even say the one Agent didn't do anything wrong by "reviewing" these documents because the Agent, not being a lawyer, subjectively believed they were in rightful possession. Its actually an argument the government uses a lot to circumvent the 4th Amendment protection of illegal searches and seizures. More specifically, the 4th Amendment only applies to searches/seizures of the Government and the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to searched by non-government entities. The big question is if the Defense truly has some smoking gun evidence of the government (FBI and/or US Attorney) requesting Imaging Universe copy the work product documents.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

hackuser 10y ago

> the facts suggest We don't know the facts, only what one side or the other claims.

xviia 10y ago
Often there are things that "are not in dispute", i.e. both sides agree. That's pretty close to a definition of a fact. In this case, there is no disagreement that the FBI had CD's containing documents from the defense.
rosser 10y ago
When both sides of a case "stipulate" to something, as appears to be the case here, for legal purposes, that's about as factual as you're going to get.

zaroth 10y ago

It wasn't limited to just a single agent, Imaging Universe (the government contracted mandated provider of copying services for discovered documents) admits to doing this since 2006 at the request of the FBI. The US Attorney disclosed, at least in this case, the defense-selected documents were used to help prepare government expert witnesses. Woah...

will_brown 10y ago
>It wasn't limited to just a single agent, Imaging Universe (the government contracted mandated provider of copying services for discovered documents) admits to doing this since 2006 at the request of the FBI. Definitely that is what the defense is arguing, but is it true/can it be proved? I read the admission to mean just the 1 Agent: “The U.S. Attorney’s Office has admitted that Agent Deanne Lindsey had been receiving copies of the CDs and had been keeping the duplicate CDs in a folder as she received them,” On second reading, I think I see what the Government response to the Motion will be based this little excerpt: >"The government’s Thursday night response acknowledged that Imaging Universe did supply the FBI with duplicate CDs of what the company had copied for Schapiro’s defense team, but said the discs “were never requested by any agent, prosecutor or anyone else on the government’s behalf.”" I think what they will argue in Court is that the Contractor gave them (US Attorney and/or FBI) attorney-client privileged documents in error and they didn't do anything wrong because they were not requested by the Government and as soon as the prosecutors learned what the Contractor did they disclosed it. They might even say the one Agent didn't do anything wrong by "reviewing" these documents because the Agent, not being a lawyer, subjectively believed they were in rightful possession. Its actually an argument the government uses a lot to circumvent the 4th Amendment protection of illegal searches and seizures. More specifically, the 4th Amendment only applies to searches/seizures of the Government and the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to searched by non-government entities. The big question is if the Defense truly has some smoking gun evidence of the government (FBI and/or US Attorney) requesting Imaging Universe copy the work product documents.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]