Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 95-1190
Appellee,
v.
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
ERRATA SHEET
ERRATA SHEET
No. 95-1190
Appellee,
v.
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
____________________
Before
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
United States
____________________
Attorney, with w
LYNCH,
LYNCH,
formerly
Circuit Judge.
Circuit Judge.
______________
U.S.
convicted of three
federal
Department
He was
bankruptcy fraud.1
Commerce
workers' compensation
an insurer.
of
Charles
claims, and
Edgar,
employee,
was
statements on his
of one
count of
acquitted on
Edgar
Martin
other charges,
including
and one
day plus two years of supervised release and was fined $5000.
His
fraud, workers'
joinder of
the bankruptcy
insurance fraud
refusal to sever.
He
was
strongly asserts
before
the
grand
jury
which,
he
alleges,
violated
his
attorney-client privilege.
He also
submitted to
the jury
under the
in
him
discovery
was
error,
and
that
the
was
We affirm.
evidence
Edgar argues
to have
____________________
1.
counts
claims,
of
mail fraud
based
on
the workers'
compensation
in connection with
bankruptcy
on
fraud.
on eleven counts
of
-22
auto
insurance
fraud and
bankruptcy
fraud
into a
single
a thread to sew them all together, and that the counts should
his attorney-client
process.
The
lawyer who
claim.
about
privilege and
government subpoenaed
to the
on
him due
grand jury
the
Edgar's communications
privilege gave
way in the
on grounds
of attorney-client
face of continued
questioning by
the
prosecutor.
attorney's
before
there
Edgar
grand jury
trial.
says
he
first
testimony after
learned
he was
of
his
indicted and
was no prejudice to
Edgar at trial
Background
__________
Edgar's
checkered
1984 Edgar
filed claims
reporting
on
his
employment
for compensation
to the
Office of
Labor
In
of
-33
allegedly work-related.
claim
of
total
The
disability
from
1987
on.
The
to a
federal
the period
beyond 1986, but Edgar again won on appeal and he was paid to
1989.
certain
In
May of
1991, in
periods between
an effort
1989 and
to get
1991, he
payments for
submitted three
forms
CA-8
forms are
as well
as forms
important to
EN1032-0389 ("1032").
the OWCP in
considering claims
These
for
continuing compensation.
provided
if
information is
earning
the
claimant
used by OWCP
was
working.
to determine a
The
employment
claimant's wage
Edgar
did
also
owned, from
that
he was
1985 to
1990.2
neither self-employed
Nor
Instead,
Edgar reported
nor employed
by others.
The
forms
include
warning that
any
"false
statement,
____________________
2.
During the
time for
which he claimed
He eventually became
in Massachusetts,
disability, Edgar
but was
licensed to
suspended following
-44
misrepresentation,
the
[or] concealment
of fact"
down on
this claim.
But,
could subject
based in part on
those forms, he
government.
accident and asserted he injured his back and could not work.
Attorney
Robert Koditek
represented him
in his
claims for
injury and lost income against the other driver's insurer and
to
his
own
insurance
carrier, Commercial
Union.
Edgar
by
salary of
$45,600.
Attorney
Koditek, representing
1988,
asserting that
be
paid him.
lost
income,
federal income
1987."
Edgar had
the letter
Edgar's claim
attached
tax returns
Those signed
for
returns
on October 12,
In support of
in either
$61,876.
"copies
the years
showed
as a
policy limits
of Mr.
Edgar's
1985, 1986,
income for
1985 or 1986;
-55
Edgar,
so, the
1985
and
of
never filed
government
Commercial
Attorney Koditek
him
given to Commercial
The
37 count
indictment
returned
charged
three
fraudulent
schemes.
charged
Edgar
with
fraud, alleging
wrongfully
obtained money
Department of Labor.
with
Another count
through the
first
his disability
claim
false
counts
Edgar
had
to the
premised on Edgar's
from
capacity in
1989 to
1992.
through Attorney
twelve
that
Edgar
mails (specifically,
Koditek, of false
24
falsely representing
connection
The
against
The remaining
statements
bankruptcy.
in
1991
The scheme
in
alleged
connection
was
that
with
Edgar's
Edgar filed
bankruptcy
petition
in
California,
falsely
representing
security
number and
concealing assets
-66
and income
social
from his
schemes
should
not
insufficiently
enough
that
trial
have
similar.
characteristic,
been
joined
He argues
because
that the
they
were
single common
evidence of
one scheme
the evidence
three
of
one fraud
would not
be admissible
that
He also argues
in a
Edgar was
predisposed
to
of claims against
court refused
first
to undo,
that there
was
raises two
concerns.
not sufficient
the district
Edgar argues
similarity among
the
counts
of
conviction
to
permit
joinder.
Second,
he
even those on
which he was
conviction.
him
apart from
Two or more
offenses may
be charged
in
character . . . .
620
F.2d 922,
928 (2d
Cir. 1980),
and similarity
must be
-77
analyzed
time
of indictment.
As
the
of economy of
resources.
620
from misjoinder
Chambers,
________
964
misjoinder is
F.2d at 928.
Denial of
is
de novo.
F.2d
reviewed
1250
(1st
not reversible
Cir.
if it
United States
______________
1992).
was
Further,
harmless.
v.
United
______
Randazzo, __
________
No. 95-1489,
slip op. at
6 (1st
his motion
granted.
to sever the
have been
showing of
be affirmed unless
evident prejudice."
there is a
United States
_____________
"strong
v. O'Bryant,
________
In
laid
under the
same statute,
whether they
involve similar
-88
in which the
Taylor,
______
occurred."
United States
_____________
v.
omitted).3
because
charged conduct
the workers'
accident fraud
involved the
the automobile
of claimed
asserted
loss of
income, the
submission of
false official
to
rake
in
compensation
large
fraud
sums.
overlapped
As
to
the
timing,
auto
the
insurance
workers'
fraud.
the
auto
disability
accident
fraud
would
be
We believe
there
on
capacity.
used
Evidence
the
as to
claimed
crash, and to
were
sufficient similarities
____________________
3.
An earlier
stringent standard
for the
government to
two charged
the
same
basic
Yefsky, 994
______
schemes,
of facts or participants'"
quoting
or more
underlying
join two
mechanism,
United States
_____________
v.
misrepresenting
earning
capacity in
in both
we
believe
that
joinder
of the
a back injury,
counts
underlying
these
schemes would have been proper even under the test applied in
Yefsky.
______
decide
Given
our disposition
of this issue,
we need
not
for joinder of
-99
by
the
joinder of
the bankruptcy
fraud.4
we are disturbed
We
discern no
"common scheme
or plan."
95-1489,
slip op.
relating
to events
statutes
and the
possibly
other unspecified
different.
5.
in
Massachusetts.
1991, were
involve
__, No.
fraud
brought under
was Edgar's
creditors).
The
the other
charges,
different
ex-wife (and
The location
earnings.
modes of operation
workers' compensation
of
The bankruptcy
supposed victim
loss
Randazzo, __ F.3d at
________
was
California, while
the
at
See
___
were different.
and automobile
In
insurance frauds,
alleged bankruptcy
in the
fraud
did not
Rather,
it was allegedly an
The
primarily in
his ex-
he had an
to
for
convicted him
not because
of specific evidence
showing his
____________________
4.
the bankruptcy
looks
fraud.
He
piling it on .
. . ."
of indictment
He also thought
other
false statement
cases"
-1010
and
that
joinder of
boost up
there was
an
guilt,
man.5
Specifically,
Edgar
posits
that
the
jury
heard
auto
had an
insurance claim;
divorce; (3) he
false
(2) he
extremely acrimonious
statements that
various properties
he
and has
resided there;
(4) he
established trusts
has owned
at different
prejudice"
injurious
because
effect
verdict."
omitted);
(1995).
Lane,
____
it
or
474
did
Edgar was
fraud and of
not
influence in
U.S.
at
have
"substantial
determining
449
the
(internal
McAninch, 115 S.
________
several counts
improperly
of mail fraud
and
jury's
quotations
the bankruptcy
in the
workers'
Of
proved itself
it acquitted
____________________
5.
Edgar also
upon this
claim of
not another.
prejudice, and
establish prejudicial
joinder.
-1111
is not
United States v.
______________
on three.
The jury
discriminating
even within
the
See
___
(1st Cir.
United States
_____________
fraud, thus
evidence on
v. Stackpole, 811
_________
clearly capable
on one of
confused by joinder).
of
risk of
count.
instructions.6
reducing
the bankruptcy
F.2d 689,
694
several counts
See Chambers,
___ ________
964
809, 815
limiting instruction);
joinder of defendants
under Fed.
at 450 (analyzing
R. Crim. P.
8(b)7).
The
____________________
6.
out
minds any
evidence concerning
Security number,
of
necessary
the use of
a false Social
elements of
each of
as a matter
those charges."
The
court
consideration. . .
reasonable doubt,
And you
its burden
excluding all
You must
must determine if
of proof
references
to or
beyond a
evidence
7.
Fed.
R. Crim. P.
joinder of two or
participated in
-1212
Some
insurance
compensation
of
the evidence
schemes
was
scheme, thus
Stackpole,
_________
811
F.2d
(analyzing
joinder
as
admissible
to
as
resulting in
at 694;
cf.
___
of defendants
Lane,
____
under
the bankruptcy
to
the
and
workers'
no prejudice.
See
___
474
U.S. at
450
Rule
8(b)).
Any
his
income
for
the
compensation fraud
issue.
The
encompassed
by
made to
the insurance
the
on the latter
in
on the
substantial
conviction.
three
workers'
insurance company
was
the
statements
connection with
workers'
years
independent
counts
Department of
of
submitting
evidence
on
Finally, there
the
counts
of
falsified
documents
to
the
evidence unrelated to
the bankruptcy.
Thus, Edgar
cannot
meet
his
burden
of
showing
of the counts.
as
lead to
he was
guilty of B
at 973.
-- without
Taylor, 54 F.3d
______
That
-1313
certain
of the
workers' compensation
severance
and
claimed error.
joinder is
counts could
to his benefit.
stricter
just as
The law of
master than
Edgar's
On June
subpoena
government nor
Attorney
testified under
Koditek notified
him that
Koditek
Edgar
jury testimony of
indicted.
after he was
for a copy of
to
trial,
the
new
prosecutor
assigned
Ten
to
days prior
the
case
This
AUSA:
Do
part
you recall
at some point
of your
Insurance
returns
claim to
Company
to
--
making, as
Commercial Union
submitting
commercial Union
tax
evidencing
I may have.
AUSA:
KODITEK:
I don't recall.
AUSA:
Mr. Koditek,
____________________
8.
The
district court
disclose certain
allowed the
government's motion
portions of Attorney
Koditek's grand
to
jury
-1414
if
you
could
read
that
carefully
to
yourself.
KODITEK:
AUSA:
Have
you
looked
at
that
document
carefully, sir?
KODITEK:
Yes, I have.
AUSA:
Does
that
refresh your
recollection at
all
as
to
whether
you
submitted
returns
to
Commercial
Company
Union
tax
Insurance
earning ability?
KODITEK:
AUSA:
Do
you recall
any discussions
with Mr.
Any
discussions would be
subject to the
attorney/client privilege.
AUSA:
was said,
but I'm
asking whether
came
up.
KODITEK:
AUSA:
of those
Any
attorney/client privilege.
AUSA:
Well, I
think
that in
this
particular
What I'm
submitting or
or in fact, that he
having you
submit to
the
Commercial
tax
returns
That is
tax
Union Insurance
which
were
not
Company
the same.
returns that
were not
submitted to
AUSA:
Was it your
tax
returns that
he submitted
were, in
returns as filed
with
What
is
clear
is
that
Attorney
Koditek
was
-1515
client,
that
he asserted
attorney-client
privilege twice,
that the prosecutor responded that the matter was not covered
by
privilege
and that
Koditek
then
answered.
This
was
testimony.
At trial
grounds of attorney-
court
rejected
testified that
Commercial
the
privilege
he represented
Union
claim,
that
claim.
Attorney
Edgar in connection
he
wrote
two
The
Koditek
with the
letters
to
Commercial Union in
tax
grounds
of
privilege
the
demand
because
company,
the
tax returns
of
of
who
gave him
the
were
disclosed
to the
insurance
examine
Attorney
question
not privileged.
the
Edgar.
Edgar
that he received
counsel
authorized.
or
that
the
attorney's
actions
were
not
he did to
-1616
not
been submitted
to the IRS.
to Commercial Union
The government
had
did put on
the IRS.
Edgar
attorney's
tree
grand
filed
testimony.
theory that
jury
was
dismissed
or
precedent
for
indictment
Attorney
evidence
an
motions
He argued
illegal
based
derived from
several
and so
argument
breach of
the
be
that
upon evidence
his
a fruit-of-the-poisonous-
Koditek's
should
regarding
testimony before
indictment
the
should be
suppressed.
There
is
court
quash
an
obtained from
or
directly
may
See
___
1421
(D.
Md. 1986)
(but
doubting
that dismissal
was
an
361 (1981));
Ct.
1988).
prosecutor
derived
Some federal
induces
from the
the
courts
breach,
breach is
have
held
suppression
the appropriate
(Fla. Cir.
that if
of
the
evidence
remedy, unless
indictment may be
dismissed.
United States v.
______________
Rogers, 751
______
See, e.g.,
_________
to
defendant
confidential
could be
neutralized
communications
by
excluding at
wrongfully
-1717
F.2d
obtained
trial
from
defendant's former
uses
its
supervisory
directly encroaches
jury.
attorney).
power
upon the
But "[w]hen a
to dismiss
limited
(internal citation
F.3d
omitted).
it
the grand
circumstances."
53
indictment
fundamental role of
extremely
an
federal court
Whitehouse
__________
1349,
1359
(1st
v.
United
______
Cir.
1995)
Indeed, the
an indictment for
prosecutorial
Scotia v.
misconduct.
Bank
of Nova
United
_____________________
States,
______
487
U.S.
250,
263
(1988).
discovery as
to
Attorney Koditek.
subpoena
government
had failed
to
Edgar
______
also
sought
And,
he argued
follow the
that
procedures in
the
United
______
denied.
Edgar
argues on
appeal
that the
questioning
of
due
process and
to
the
the assistance
of
counsel.
attorney-client privilege
and
that
We
will
rights under
those rights
were
violated
jury.
But
by
Attorney Koditek's
even with
testimony before
those assumptions it
the grand
does not
follow
-1818
Contrary to Edgar's
right to
counsel
called to
See,
___
is even
arguments, no Sixth
implicated
here, as
troubled
by what
happened
and seek
Amendment
the
lawyer
defense counsel.
Nonetheless, we are
guidance
in case
Rules of the
law
of the
long
simmering
dispute in
Massachusetts
in
over
resulted
a district
Rule that
15").
by an equally
the
Board
of Bar
Overseers that
Mass. 1986).
The
the
judgment against
rule was
invalid as
prosecutors in
It
is
unprofessional
conduct
for
prosecutor to
subpoena an attorney
grand
without
jury
approval
prosecutor
in
prior
circumstances
seeks
attorney/witness
to
to
compel
provide
a
to a
judicial
where
the
the
evidence
117 (D.
-1919
The
literally
Attorney
of
the
prosecutor here
apply as
Edgar
argues
that PF
was represented
___
in
15 does
not
the past
by
subpoena,
Nonetheless,
the
as
the
prosecution
language
of
PF
represented to
15
requires.
the
district
prior
judicial approval
Edgar
to
serve the
subpoena.
But,
as
The
criminal
subpoena
here
least
not go
to
the
target's
53 F.3d
did
at 1354.
But
potentially
that situation.
See Whitehouse,
___ __________
placed
in
the
Koditek were
hypothetical
situation
The
serving of
circumstances
chilling
a
will
several
is
the
and
such
a
between
the
his client.
This
natural
underlying
under
immediately drive
wedge
attorney/witness
wedge
subpoena
consequence
factors
created
Most
at
of
by
obvious
best, and
suspicious at
is uncertain
worst, that
____________________
9.
The
court in
Klubock II produced
___________
for publication
the
banc
F.2d
at
district
665.
The
opinion
panel opinion.
in
Klubock II affirming
___________
the
Klubock II
__________
-2020
be subject to betrayal.
subpoenaed
feel
attorney/witness may
place
if
there
ethical
is
subpoenaing
of
an
in fact take
not
control
himself
even
minimal
regulating
the
attorney/witness
to
More
subtle,
but
perhaps
more
which PF
immediate
15
is
conflict of
between
the
client
by the
framed, is
the
interests created
attorney/witness
serving of a
and
his
subpoena in
As
a witness, the
separate
legal
attorney/witness
and
practical
or may not
coincide
with
those
of the
his client.
a
conflict is
problem.
attorney/witness and
sufficient
minimal
to
create
overview
by
an
by PF
these
ethical conflicts
between the
United States v.
______________
1987)
Klubock,
_______
(footnote omitted)
832 F.2d
649, 652-53
("Klubock I").
_________
We
(1st Cir.
believe these
There
may be
an implicit
attorney
prosecutor
will
think
become
threat to
the attorney
target
he knowingly
himself10
participated
should
in
the
the
the fraud.
____________________
10.
if called
Koditek's trial
to
testify.
testimony, he
By
the time
of
Attorney
immunity by
the prosecution.
-2121
This is
the
particularly so
privilege must
give way
to the
asserts that
crime-fraud exception.
in order
to avoid
becoming
a target
himself.11
Ideally,
consistently
assert the
privilege
on behalf
of a
client.
an
attorney witness
whether the
ideal
We
world.
are loath
line.
will seek
privilege is valid.
See Jerome
___
to say
But we are
a judicial
But we
determination of
do not live
in an
the prosecutor
equally loath to
here crossed
say, as
over the
the government
____________________
11.
While an attorney
set forth
in S.J.C. Rule
101(C)(4),
client,
reveal information
the
doctrine does
"accusation"
prosecutor
of
an
Prof. Resp.,
without prior
not
wrongful
here made
self-defense doctrine
apply
conduct.
notice
unless there
We
do
not
"accusation" against
DR 4to the
is
an
think the
counsel that
12.
Indeed,
limits
other
to
how
attempting
to
privilege.
courts
far
Omni,
____
attorney's
clients).
protecting
applies.
854
(6th Cir.
the
of
district
the
there
may
go
are
in
attorney-client
court
chastised
attorney's secretary.
the
634 F.
secretary for
But,
investigators
breach
F.2d 618
concluded that
government
induce
In
have
(improper for
information
attorneys are
the client
by
government to
about the
themselves
asserting the
pay
attorney's
responsible for
privilege when
it
(9th Cir.
-2222
454 U.S.
1157 (1982);
The
privilege lay
first
line
of
in the hands of
obligation
not to
3:07, Code
of Prof. Resp., DR
defense
his lawyer.
reveal client
to
protect
confidences.
4-101.
A lawyer
Edgar's
lawyer has an
S.J.C. Rule
also has an
on behalf of a client.
Id.;
___
see also In re Impounded Case (Law Firm), 879 F.2d 1211, 1213
________ _______________________________
(3d
Cir. 1989).
assert
the
disclose
privilege on
behalf of
determination that
there is
give notice to
duties,
not to
there is a judicial
ABA/BNA Lawyers
_______________
55:1307-08 (1989).
Even if
crime-fraud exception
Resp.,
client and
no privilege.
there
the
DR
applies, the
the client.
7-102(B)(1).
attorney is
If the
he is at risk at least
attorney
required to
Code of Prof.
violates
these
professional discipline.
beyond
zealous
representation
of the
government
when the
For
example,
if a
witness invokes
the privilege
questioning as to
see
___
against self-
-2323
(1976).
But
___
1988)
(testing
validity
of
reliance
or improperly
commented on assertion
on other grounds,
________________
line
490 U.S.
of defense is that
on
privilege
not
harangued witness
of privilege), vacated
_______
1043 (1989).
Thus, the
second
not harangue a
The
third
ultimately be a
issue.13
In
(1989),
the
line
of
defense is
there
United
States
_______________
Supreme
Court
v.
set
is
that
consistently asserted
and
the
Zolin,
_____
forth
491
the
U.S.
procedure
will
the
554
for
attorney-client privilege
government
opposes
the
privilege.
Id. at 572.
___
review of
discretion
adequate
to be privileged,
at the
to
person' . .
support a
. that
reveal evidence
in this
good
in camera
faith belief
review of
exception applies."
was made
by
a reasonable
the materials
may
(Colo. 1982)).
case because
Apparently, no
such showing
Attorney Koditek
so quickly
____________________
13.
not
resolve this
situation.
authorized issuance of
That
a subpoena to
judge has
ex parte
_________
mean
that
a determination
privilege before
the
has
been made
grand jury
has
that any
assertion of
been decided
in
the
prosecution's favor.
-2424
succumbed to
prosecutor
the prosecutor's
may
not
obtain
questioning.
disclosure,
or
Under
Zolin, a
_____
even
judicial
that
the crime-fraud
exception applies, as
happened before
Nevertheless, Edgar
no
prejudice,
conviction.
and
therefore
See Fed.
___
no
basis
R. Crim. P. 52;
that
privilege.
the
trial
and to
Attorney Koditek.
to what was
avoid the
On the
vacate
the
Koditek
company
testimony by
to
assert
benefit of
invaded
his
the prosecutor to
disclosed to the
insurance
communications between
Edgar and
significant point
as to
whether
Edgar had or had not confided to Koditek that the tax returns
to
be provided to Commercial
had to the
returns
had
grand jury.
not
Indeed, the
been filed
was
tax
returns to
introduced
he
tax
independently
Attorney Koditek,
Edgar does
not claim
on
-2525
Edgar
argues there
counsel
defense.
was prejudice
in that
to whether to assert an
Edgar chose
not to assert
he was
advice of
such an argument, of
that
the
discussions.
476,
attorney-client
See
___
486-87 (3d
Had
privilege
Cir.
he made
any claim
protected
1995); Saint-Gobain/Norton
at
those
56 F.3d
Indus. v.
___________________________
Moreover, there
actions
in
authorized.
was no
F. Supp.
31,
33 (D.
argument or evidence
connection
with
the
demand
Mass. 1995).
that Koditek's
letter
were
not
by trial
counsel.
that would
indictment.
require suppression
Cf. Rogers,
___ ______
of evidence or
quashing the
convinced us that he would not have been indicted but for his
attorney's testimony.
government
knew
that
Edgar argues
Attorney
Koditek
obtained
the
tax
returns
from
testimony.
Further, the
Edgar
was
However,
because of
that
Koditek letter
Koditek's
inference
was
grand
jury
self-evident.
came from
-2626
Commercial
Union's
claim
file
and there
was
independent
as
Edgar's.
There
reversible error.
being
no
prejudice,
there
was
no
In
the
his reply
_____
argument
for
brief14
the first
in this
time
that
court Edgar
the
makes
jury was
not
(1995).
appeal.
brief
The issue,
to
this
court, is
waived.
See
___
his principal
United States
_____________
v.
United States
_____________
v. DeMasi,
______
denied,
______
40 F.3d 1306,
1994), cert.
_____
n.7 (1st
Cir. 1993).
Had
Edgar raised
the
failure to submit
error
materiality to
the district
court.
See
___
the jury
under the
failed to raise
Randazzo, __ F.3d
________
plain
the issue in
at __, No.
95-
____________________
14.
Edgar
filed
motion with
this
court
present a claim
2310 (1995), in
his reply
"without
brief.
prejudice, however,
The
to the
for
leave to
115 S.
motion was
Ct.
granted,
government's right
to
-2727
1489,
F.3d
4, 8
(1st Cir.
1995).
Edgar
argues that
we should
element
though
the
issue were
raised in
his
initial brief.
See
___
Randazzo,
________
However,
__
we
F.3d
at __,
think a
No.
95-1489,
higher standard
must
slip
op. at
be met,
17.
and as
the
circumstances
of this
case.15
Taylor,
______
54
F.3d
unpreserved
at
errors
972
See
___
standard in
United States v.
______________
("appellate
only
in
the
courts
most
will
notice
egregious
circumstances").
Edgar
did
sufficiency of the
reject.
properly preserve
an objection
to the
to
establish that his omissions from the forms CA-8 for which he
A statement is material
has
influence
natural
affecting
or
tendency
to
influencing
a government
or
is
if it
capable
function.
of
United
______
Edgar
____________________
15.
find
strong
Edgar had
evidence
guilt, we
do
In light
not
think
of the very
there was
-2828
to grant him
benefits
had
already been made and because the forms were filed late,
his
failure
material.
to
However,
actual influence,
influence.
set
forth
his
self-employment
the standard is
but whether
not whether
it would
have a
was
not
there was
tendency to
has
considerable
warranted.
influence
Thus, the
on
the
amount
of
benefits
in finding
a finding
statements of employment
on a Form 1032).
Edgar's last
claim of error
is that there
was an
Act, 15 U.S.C.
this information
1681-1681t.
in order to
warranted.
FCRA
by
Even assuming
improperly
information could
Edgar claimed to
have needed
determine whether a
motion to
a motion to suppress
evidence was
violated the
acquiring
not shown
data
concerning
of the
in the grand
Edgar's
acquired
jury to
Scotia
______
U.S. 250
(1988).
Nor would
-2929
suppression
be
required
Suppression of the
for
violation
of
the
FCRA.
remedy under
with
the Act.
See 15 U.S.C.
___
Kington,
_______
801 F.2d
suppress
records
733,
737 (5th
obtained
in
United States
______________
1986) (refusing
violation of
v. Payner,
______
447
U.S.
ground that
United States
______________
obtained
in
suppressed).
v. Caceres,
_______
violation
of
Right
(evidence otherwise
it was
the
to
to
also
____
Cir.
v.
440
IRS
U.S.
727,
735 (1980)
suppressed on the
a third
741 (1979)
regulation
no abuse of
cf.
___
need
party);
(evidence
not
be
discretion in the
Affirmed.
_________
-3030