IN RE JANUARY 1976 GRAND JURY
534 F.2d 719 (1976)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from an order of civil contempt.
FACTS: A bank robbery was committed and Bijeol and Holloway were identified as two suspects in that robbery. A complaint and warrant was issued naming the two as suspects. Bijeol had been in the employ of Edward Genson, attorney at law, prior to the commission of the crime. Investigations also revealed that the two suspects were in the Chicago office of Genson and one of his associates, for two hours after the commission of the robbery. The government learned that Bijeol had given $200 in cash to the associate at around noon and another $200 in cash later that day. The next day, the FBI notified Genson that any monies received or that would be received as fees for his legal services might constitute the proceeds of a robbery. Genson in an interview asserted the attorney client privilege but admitted that he had received something from the suspects. Genson was then served with a subpoena to produce any and all monies paid or given to Genson by the suspects. A motion to quash was denied. Genson refused to comply and was held in contempt.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment