SMITH ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. McCRACKEN, 488 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1974)
  ….” [TR. at 720] The Government apparently believes that this instruction neutralized whatever prejudice might have resulted from the language regarding McCracken’s release. See United States v. Smith, 3 Cir. 1971, 450 F. 2d 312, cert. denied, 1972, 405 U.S. 932, 92 S.Ct. 989, 30 L.Ed.2d 807; Pittman v. United States, 9 Cir. 1966, 368 F. 2d 560, cert. denied, 1967, 386 U.S. 995, 87 S.Ct. 1314, 18 L.Ed.2d 343.26 [*426] We cannot agree with either contention. Certainly the Government presented strong evidence…
• In re Grand Jury Investigation, 723 F.2d 447 (6th Cir. 1983)
  …tes v. Tratner, 511 F. 2d 248, 251 (7th Cir.1975); United States v. Demauro, 581 F. 2d 50, 55 (2d Cir.1978); United States v. Ponder, 475 F. 2d 37, 39 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Bartlett, [*451] 449 F. 2d 700, 703 (8th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 932, 92 S.Ct. 990, 30 L.Ed.2d 808 (1972). The attorney-client privilege exists to protect confidential communications between a lawyer and his client in matters that relate to the legal interests of society and the client. In re Grand Jury Proceedings…
• United States v. Fanning, 477 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1973)
  ….S. 1, 15, 53 S.Ct. 465, 77 L.Ed. 993, appellants failed to show that information given the government by Phillips stemmed from attorney-client communications at all. Cf. United States v. Bartlett, 8 Cir., 1971, 449 F. 2d 700, 703-704, cert. denied, 405 U.S. 932, 92 S.Ct. 990, 30 L.Ed.2d 808. It is not enough to show, on the one hand, interchange between Phillips and appellants and, on the other hand, interchange between Phillips and the agent; appellants were obliged to link the two together and, further,…