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

appealhearingtestimonyaffidavitmotionwillgrand jury
appealhearingtestimonyaffidavitmotionwillgrand jury

Related Cases

People v. Darrett, 2 A.D.3d 16, 769 N.Y.S.2d 14, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 19108
View Case »
Rothberg v. Law School Admission Council, 102 Fed.Appx. 122, 190 Ed. Law Rep. 145, 28 NDLR P 129
View Case »
Jenkins v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2776478
View Case »
Texas v. United States, 50 F.4th 498
View Case »
Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 465, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,149, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,829
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga.App. 349, 333 S.E.2d 389

Facts

Mr. William Binion, an accountant, was called to testify before the Grand Jury of Hall County regarding his accounting work for several former clients. While he answered general questions, he invoked the accountant-client privilege for specific inquiries. The grand jury filed a motion to compel his testimony, supported by a sealed affidavit summarizing other testimony received. The Superior Court conducted a hearing and an in camera inspection of the materials submitted by the grand jury, ultimately ruling that the privilege did not extend to communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.

Mr. William Binion, an accountant, was called to testify before the Grand Jury of Hall County regarding his accounting work for several former clients. While he answered general questions, he invoked the accountant-client privilege for specific inquiries. The grand jury filed a motion to compel his testimony, supported by a sealed affidavit summarizing other testimony received. The Superior Court conducted a hearing and an in camera inspection of the materials submitted by the grand jury, ultimately ruling that the privilege did not extend to communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.

Issue

Did the Superior Court err in determining that the accountant-client privilege did not apply to communications made by the intervenors in furtherance of a crime or fraud?

Did the Superior Court err in determining that the accountant-client privilege did not apply to communications made by the intervenors in furtherance of a crime or fraud?

Rule

The accountant-client privilege does not protect communications that occur before the commission of a crime or fraud, and the government only needs to make a prima facie showing that the communication was made in furtherance of illegal or fraudulent activity to overcome the privilege.

The accountant-client privilege does not protect communications that occur before the commission of a crime or fraud, and the government only needs to make a prima facie showing that the communication was made in furtherance of illegal or fraudulent activity to overcome the privilege.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the nature of the communications between Mr. Binion and the intervenors. It determined that the communications were made in furtherance of a scheme to commit a crime or fraud, thus falling outside the protection of the accountant-client privilege. The Superior Court's in camera inspection of the grand jury's supporting materials was deemed appropriate to assess the validity of the privilege claim.

The court applied the rule by examining the nature of the communications between Mr. Binion and the intervenors. It determined that the communications were made in furtherance of a scheme to commit a crime or fraud, thus falling outside the protection of the accountant-client privilege. The Superior Court's in camera inspection of the grand jury's supporting materials was deemed appropriate to assess the validity of the privilege claim.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's order compelling Mr. Binion to testify, concluding that the intervenors had no valid privilege regarding their communications with him.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's order compelling Mr. Binion to testify, concluding that the intervenors had no valid privilege regarding their communications with him.

Who won?

The grand jury prevailed in this case because the court found that the communications in question were not protected by the accountant-client privilege due to their connection to criminal activity.

The grand jury prevailed in this case because the court found that the communications in question were not protected by the accountant-client privilege due to their connection to criminal activity.

You must be