Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneyappealtrialtestimonypleaattorney-client privilege
defendantattorneytrialtestimonypleaobjection

Related Cases

U.S. v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 96 A.L.R.2d 116, 9 A.F.T.R.2d 366, 62-1 USTC P 9111
View Case »
United States v. Moyer, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 2266906
View Case »
Koen Book Distributors, Inc. v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C., 212 F.R.D. 283
View Case »
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624, 79 USLW 4030, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 706, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 901, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 753
View Case »
Mourad v. Automobile Club Ins. Ass’n, 186 Mich.App. 715, 465 N.W.2d 395, 59 USLW 2495, 121 Lab.Cas. P 56,861, 6 IER Cases 193
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hunydee v. U.S., 355 F.2d 183, 17 A.F.T.R.2d 262, 66-1 USTC P 9137

Facts

Lee W. Hunydee was tried and convicted on four counts of attempting to evade payment of income taxes. He and his co-defendant, Audrey Jean Stewart Hunydee, employed separate counsel due to a potential conflict of interest. During a pre-indictment meeting, Hunydee's attorney conferred with him privately, after which Hunydee indicated he would plead guilty. However, testimony regarding this private communication was later admitted at trial, leading to the appeal.

On June 4, 1963, a pre-indictment meeting was held between the co-defendants and their respective attorneys. This meeting was called by Harry D. Steward, counsel for Mrs. Hunydee (then Mrs. Stewart). Steward there stated that he had advised his client to cooperate with the Government but that she was reluctant to do so for fear of hurting Hunydee. Steward expressed his opinion that if his client would cooperate with the Government she would not be prosecuted; and if Hunydee would plead guilty, Mrs. Hunydee undoubtedly would not be prosecuted.

Issue

Did the admission of testimony regarding Hunydee's statements to his attorney violate the attorney-client communication privilege?

Hunydee contends, among other things, that the admission of certain testimony over his objection violated the attorney-client communication privilege.

Rule

The attorney-client communication privilege applies to confidential communications made between a client and their attorney, and this privilege is not waived when co-defendants confer on matters of mutual interest concerning the case.

The principles invoked by the prosecution are that this privilege is inapplicable where the communication was not between a client and his attorney.

Analysis

The court applied the rule of attorney-client privilege by determining that Hunydee's admissions to his attorney were confidential and influenced the representation of both Hunydee and his co-defendant. The court found that the testimony regarding these admissions should not have been admitted at trial, as it violated the privilege intended to protect such communications.

Applying this principle to the facts of our case, we hold that Hunydee's admissions to his attorney were within the attorney-client communication privilege. These statements apprised the respective attorneys of Hunydee's position at that time and influenced the course of their representation.

Conclusion

The court reversed Hunydee's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Who won?

Lee W. Hunydee prevailed in the appeal because the court found that his attorney-client privilege was violated by the admission of testimony regarding his statements.

Lee W. Hunydee was tried and convicted on four counts of an indictment charging attempts to evade payment of income taxes, in violation of section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Code).

You must be