In In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 21-11596 (June 25, 2021) (Jordan, Newsom, Lagoa), the Court upheld an order granting the government’s motion to compel an attorney’s testimony to a grand jury. The attorney was the lawyer in charge of the campaign of a political candidate who was under criminal investigation.  While the attorney claimed that his testimony was protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Court agreed with the district court that the communications fell into the crime-fraud exception to the privilege.  First, the Court held that the government made a prima facie showing of federal wire fraud by the candidate stemming from the diversion of, and failure to report, funds solicited by and donated to the campaign.  Second, the Court held that the attorney’s communications with the campaign were sufficiently related to the wire-fraud scheme.  Although courts have articulated different standards of relatedness, the more restrictive standard—requiring the communications to have furthered the criminal purpose—was met here because the lawyer was aware of the personal expenditures and then revised and reviewed the misleading disclosure forms. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202111596.pdf

In United States v. Nunez et al., No. 19-14181 (June 17, 2021) (William Pryor, Grant, Tjoflat), the Court affirmed the defendants’ MDLEA convictions. First, the Court held that there was jurisdiction because the vessel was one without nationality.  The “vessel without nationality” definitions in the statute were not exclusive, and the vessel here lacked nationality because it carried no documents, flew no flag, had no name or numbers, and nobody on the vessel claimed that it had nationality or registry.  In addition, nobody claimed to be the master or captain, and the smugglers all played equal roles.  The Court rejected the argument that this meant they were all in charge or took turns at being in charge.  The Court also rejected a Second Circuit decision, which concluded that jurisdiction was lacking when three men, none of whom claimed to be the master, were not asked for a claim of nationality or registry. Second, the Court held that the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction under either the Confrontation Clause or the statute.  In this case, the smugglers did not identify any facts that they sought to contest or additional facts they sought to introduce.  [...]

In United States v. Anderson, No. 18-13947 (June 15, 2021) (Wilson, Branch, Julie Carnes), the Court affirmed the defendant’s mail fraud, false statements, and money laundering convictions. First, the Court held that the district court did not err by asking the defendant whether he knew that he had a right to testify and whether he wished to do so or waive the right.  Although not required, the court’s straightforward and neutral inquiry did not violate his right to testify.  Nor did it render his counsel ineffective by asking what choice the defendant had made.  The colloquy, which did not probe questions of strategy or suggest the court’s own preference, vindicated rather than violated his constitutional rights. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give a requested instruction on a particular statute that he was not charged with violating.  Failure to give the instruction did not impair the defense, and the defendant was otherwise free to pursue his defenses without impediment. Third, the Court found no reversible error under Rule 30(b) where the district court amended an erroneous draft jury instruction for mail fraud after the defendant’s closing argument.  The Court found no unfair prejudice, as [...]