1 response

  1. Meh
    February 9, 2017

    I know nothing about the underlying allegations. But some of the hand-waving in the complaint seems rather overwrought based on my memory of federal procedure.

    For instance, it’s pretty common practice for trial subpoenas (issued by the prosecution or the defense) to allow the recipient to produce the relevant documents and an affidavit before the trial in lieu of appearance. I don’t see any reason why those need to be produced to the lawyer, as opposed to the defense investigator or investigating agent. And that’s totally separate from productions to chambers under Rule 17(c).

    Also, I notice that the complaint also has a cause of action based on the California Constitution’s right to privacy. Anyone want to guess what the likelihood of success is on that claim, when exercised against a federal officer for the actions taken in his/her federal employment? (Hint: Check 28 USC 2679(b).)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Back to top
mobile desktop