SMITH

v.

STRIKE FORCE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. The Republic OF THE Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991)
  …t be discovered in subsequent civil litigation. It is often stated that the purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to encourage “full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients.” See, for exam-pie, Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 883, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). Full and frank communication is not an end in itself, however, but merely a means to achieve the ultimate purpose of the privilege: “promot[ing] broader public interests in the observance of law and admini…
• United States v. Nelson, 851 F.2d 976 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …l penalty against the individual. The proceeding is in personam against the defendant and the forfeiture is part of the punishment. See Ginsburg, 773 F. 2d at 800; United States v. L’Hoste, 609 F. 2d 796, 813 n. 15 (5th Cir.1980), certiorari denied, 449 U.S. 883, 101 S.Ct. 104, 66 L.Ed. 2d 39; Reed, supra, at 747-748. Nelson therefore must [*982] forfeit the total amount of the proceeds of his smuggling activity, regardless of whether the specific dollars received from that activity are still in his possess…