About Expert
Key Topics
Your firm is hired to handle the appeal before the (fictitious) United States Court of Appeals for the 12th Circuit on behalf of Samantha Clark. Ms. Clark has been convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for lying to a federal prosecutor while she was negotiating a plea agreement on behalf of her client. Attached is the opinion of the lower court. You can glean all of the relevant facts from that opinion.Your job is to draft a brief of approximately 10 pages long or longer (not including table of contents, table of authorities, cover pages, etc.) arguing that her conviction should be reversed. You may discuss or ignore the issued raised in the lower court’s opinion. In addition, you may raise any other issues you think may be helpful.You may use authorities cited in the lower court’s opinion and you should certainly research and find your own additional authorities. Throughout your brief, remember whose side you are on. You work for the Defendant, Ms. Clark.
To: United States Court of Appeals
From:
Re: United States of America v Samantha Clarke, 123 D.F. 456
Date:
From:
Re: United States of America v Samantha Clarke, 123 D.F. 456
Date:
Facts
Samantha Cark, the Defendant, has been practicing criminal defense in the state of Freedonia, United States. In 2016, she was indicted by the lower Court on account of violating Section 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for lying to a federal prosecutor. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the sole charge in the indictment. However, she has moved to dismiss the charges. She contended that – a) §1001 has no applicability to the conversations of defense attorneys with federal prosecutors; and b) its applicability is unconstitutional because of the fact that it undermines criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the students
Place Your OrderDiscussion/Defense
Since this case is a matter of first impression in this circuit, so it is required on the part of the court that it should delve deeper to address all the aspects of the case. Also, this case conspicuously reflects the matter of law rather than mere facts. So, the relevant questions that arise before the court of law for the defense of Ms. Clarke are needed to be reviewed de novo.
Let us go through every premise put across by Ms. Clark that can form the basis for reversing the indictment of Ms. Clarke.
1) Any defense attorney in any court of law, is provided with certain functionalities on which the representation of their cases rest in order to put across their arguments and build their narratives. So, in relation to that the defense attorneys are bound to the duty of loyalty towards their clients. It is, therefore, not suffice for the purpose of the case that is being represented and argued in the court of law, to divulge the confidential information regarding the defendant by his/her attorney.
Thus, it is in the wider public scope and greater public good that an exception for the defense attorneys should have found a place in the provisions of this law by now. To further elaborate this point, such a situation for any defense attorney clearly highlights the unwillingness on the part of the Congress to make an exception. This could be because of the fact that Congress did not explore every possible scenario that might arise as far as 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Therefore, it is the right time and opportunity for the Courts to judicially create an exception to 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for defense attorneys in the course of the representation of a criminal defendant ("18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally", 1994). Also, there was no material statement on the part of Clark because of the fact that a prosecutor would not normally rely on a statement by defense attorney about the innocence of his/her client.
In a similar case of Paritem Singh Poonian v United States, 294 F2d 74 (9th Cir. 1961) that was about whether falsification in the court should be material or not. In this case, the court held that materiality is an essential element regarding a crime of making false statements. In other words, for obtaining a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, government is required to prove that the false statement was material ("PARITEM SINGH POONIAN V. UNITED STATES", n.d.).
Let us go through every premise put across by Ms. Clark that can form the basis for reversing the indictment of Ms. Clarke.
1) Any defense attorney in any court of law, is provided with certain functionalities on which the representation of their cases rest in order to put across their arguments and build their narratives. So, in relation to that the defense attorneys are bound to the duty of loyalty towards their clients. It is, therefore, not suffice for the purpose of the case that is being represented and argued in the court of law, to divulge the confidential information regarding the defendant by his/her attorney.
Thus, it is in the wider public scope and greater public good that an exception for the defense attorneys should have found a place in the provisions of this law by now. To further elaborate this point, such a situation for any defense attorney clearly highlights the unwillingness on the part of the Congress to make an exception. This could be because of the fact that Congress did not explore every possible scenario that might arise as far as 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Therefore, it is the right time and opportunity for the Courts to judicially create an exception to 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for defense attorneys in the course of the representation of a criminal defendant ("18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally", 1994). Also, there was no material statement on the part of Clark because of the fact that a prosecutor would not normally rely on a statement by defense attorney about the innocence of his/her client.
In a similar case of Paritem Singh Poonian v United States, 294 F2d 74 (9th Cir. 1961) that was about whether falsification in the court should be material or not. In this case, the court held that materiality is an essential element regarding a crime of making false statements. In other words, for obtaining a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, government is required to prove that the false statement was material ("PARITEM SINGH POONIAN V. UNITED STATES", n.d.).
2) As many questions are arising at every stage of this case, it really raises more doubts regarding the constitutionality of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. As a matter of truth, the criminal defendants have a duty of loyalty and a duty of due diligence towards his or her client, wherein any statement being made should safeguard his or her client’s right of getting fair justice. It can also be argued that the laws that have been less represented in the courts, especially the ones that are the matter of first impressions also attract a lot of potential grey areas in terms of their interpretation. Therefore, the specter of prosecution for making false statements during the process of plea negotiations should prevent defense attorneys from diligently representing their clients in these negotiations.
So, if the conviction of Ms. Clarke is allowed in this case, it will likely to compromise a lot of factors that can go in her favor. These factors are – violating client confidentiality, remaining silent and implicitly admitting guilt and subjecting oneself to the prosecution.
In a similar case regarding Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964), the Court held that in jurisdictions, even if there is an absence of immunity provision, any witnessed cannot be compelled to give testimony that might incriminate him under the laws of another jurisdiction ("Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n 378 U.S. 52 (1964)", n.d.).
Further, as per MRPC Rule 1.6 , it is required that a lawyer shall not reveal any information that is related to the representation of a client unless the client provides an informed consent.
Therefore, we can explicitly state that if conviction of Ms. Clark is upheld, the defense attorneys, in general, would not be able to deny a client guilt whenever asked point blank whether the client is guilty.
So, if the conviction of Ms. Clarke is allowed in this case, it will likely to compromise a lot of factors that can go in her favor. These factors are – violating client confidentiality, remaining silent and implicitly admitting guilt and subjecting oneself to the prosecution.
In a similar case regarding Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964), the Court held that in jurisdictions, even if there is an absence of immunity provision, any witnessed cannot be compelled to give testimony that might incriminate him under the laws of another jurisdiction ("Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n 378 U.S. 52 (1964)", n.d.).
Further, as per MRPC Rule 1.6 , it is required that a lawyer shall not reveal any information that is related to the representation of a client unless the client provides an informed consent.
Therefore, we can explicitly state that if conviction of Ms. Clark is upheld, the defense attorneys, in general, would not be able to deny a client guilt whenever asked point blank whether the client is guilty.
References
18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally. (1994). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 25 October 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n 378 U.S. 52 (1964). Justia Law. Retrieved 25 October 2016, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/52/case.html
PARITEM SINGH POONIAN V. UNITED STATES. Casetext.com. Retrieved 25 October 2016, from https://casetext.com/case/paritem-singh-poonian-v-united-states
Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n 378 U.S. 52 (1964). Justia Law. Retrieved 25 October 2016, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/52/case.html
PARITEM SINGH POONIAN V. UNITED STATES. Casetext.com. Retrieved 25 October 2016, from https://casetext.com/case/paritem-singh-poonian-v-united-states
Give your grades a boost
Just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time.
-
1,168,768 Orders
-
4.9/5 Overall Rating
-
5,052 Experts
+1-817-968-5551
+44-7480-542904
+61-488-839-676