Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cr-00022/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cr-00022-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Eugene Guilford
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER EUGENE GUILFORD,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:24-CR-00022-JLT-SKO

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 46)

Mr. Guilford was indicted last year on charges that he filed a false tax return, resulting in 

him receiving approximately $1.2 million unlawfully from the Internal Revenue Service. (Doc. 1) 

He appeared initially in Nevada, where he was detained. See Doc. 10. He appeared in this Court 

in April 2024, and he has remained detained. Id. Since at least May 2024, Mr. Guilford was 

housed at the Central Valley Annex, in McFarland, California.

While housed at CVA, on several occasions, Mr. Guilford telephoned his lawyer, using 

the monitored phone located in the dorm rather than using an unmonitored phone in the attorney 

conference rooms. His recorded calls were collected by the assigned investigating agent, who 

listened to all of he calls, including those between Mr. Guilford and his lawyer. Without hearing 

the calls herself, when the assigned AUSA learned of these calls, she immediately deleted the 

calls, had the agent, who listened to the calls, removed from the investigation, and had a “taint 

Case 1:24-cr-00022-JLT-SKO Document 78 Filed 12/26/24 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

team” assigned to the matter. The taint team determined that the content of the calls was not 

disseminated beyond the originally assigned case agent. Even still, Mr. Guilford seeks to have his 

case dismissed based upon these facts. (Doc. 41) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is 

DENIED.

1

I. Background

While housed at CVA, Mr. Guilford was trained that the phones in the dorm are 

monitored. (Doc. 52-1) The phones have a sticker on them telling the inmates that the calls “may 

be monitored and recorded” (Doc. 52-2 at 1-2), and a recording when the call is placed, tells the 

inmate that the call is being monitored. (Doc. 52-1 at 1) CVA also has information posted in the

dorm telling inmates how to arrange for an unmonitored call (Doc. 52-1). This information is also 

contained in the inmate handbook, which is provided to the inmates when they arrive at the 

facility. (Doc. 52-1 at 1-2; Doc. 52-4) Despite this, Mr. Guilford called his attorney 15 times 

before July 1, 2024, using the monitored dorm phone. (Doc. 49-1 at 1; Doc. 52-7 at 3-4) Of these 

times, at least two appear to have resulted in conversations between Mr. Guilford and his lawyer, 

due to their length.

2

Id.

When the AUSA received the recorded calls, she began listening to them. (Doc. 49-1) 

When she heard a call, which played the attorney’s voicemail, the AUSA stopped listening to the 

calls. Id. She deleted the calls and, when she learned that the case agent had listened to the calls, 

she had him removed from the case. Id. She also had a taint team assigned, who investigated and 

learned that though the case agent had listened to the calls, no one else had done so, nor had 

anyone else learned of the content of the calls. Id. Also, the AUSA verified that the newly 

assigned case agent and his supervisor did not hear the calls or learn of the content of the calls.

(Doc. 49-1; Doc. 61; Doc. 62)

II. The motion to dismiss should be denied

1 The Court conducted an in-camera review of documents submitted to the Court and to defense counsel.

(Docs. 70-72) The information in these documents is concerning, but it bears on the situation only 

indirectly.

2 Five appear to have not connected with the lawyer because there was time spent talking and no time 

billed to Mr. Guilford. Id. Two of the calls were longer than five minutes, but most were less than two 

minutes.

Case 1:24-cr-00022-JLT-SKO Document 78 Filed 12/26/24 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Mr. Guilford argues that the fact that the case agent heard the conversations between him 

and his lawyer, justifies dismissal of the action. (Docs. 46, 51) He relies upon United States v. 

Danielson, 352 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2003). In Danielson, the Court determined that the Sixth 

Amendment protects the integrity of the trial process by ensuring that the government takes no 

action that unfairly impacts the trial’s fairness. Id. at 1066. Unlike in Danielson, here, there is no 

evidence that the government took any purposeful steps to gain attorney-client communications 

or to unfairly impact the trial’s fairness. 

First, rather than the government eliciting statements from Mr. Guilford, Mr. Guilford

chose to use a phone to call his attorney that he knew would be recorded and could be monitored. 

He had access to an unmonitored phone but chose not to use it. The fact that the government 

sought to listen to the monitored calls is not analogous to the conduct in Danielson. This is a 

routine investigatory tactic, that does not usually result in information communicated to an 

attorney. 

Second, the fact that the case agent listened to the communications between Mr. Guilford 

and his lawyer, is insufficient to justify the relief sought. This conduct resulted in the case agent

being removed from the case and walled off from the agents who took over. Moreover, there is no 

suggestion that the AUSA learned anything that was communicated between Mr. Guilford and his 

lawyer during these calls. Thus, there is no showing of prejudice or, in fact, that there can be any 

impacts on the fairness of the trial.

Third, Mr. Guilford’s argument that the government’s “outrageous conduct” requires 

dismissal of the action, is misplaced. It bears repeating that Mr. Guilford chose to talk to his 

attorney on phones that he knew were recorded and monitored. This situation is one that he 

created, not the government. Though the former case agent should not have listened to the calls, 

this does not require dismissal of the prosecution due to the quick action taken by the AUSA.

Finally, Mr. Guilford’s argument that the fact that his attorney was not more quickly 

alerted to the situation does not demonstrate prejudice to him. Indeed, Mr. Guilford has made no 

effort to demonstrate any resulting prejudice, choosing instead to suggest that the delay equates to 

prejudice. The Court disagrees. In short, the Court is unconcerned that the calls were recorded—

Case 1:24-cr-00022-JLT-SKO Document 78 Filed 12/26/24 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

this was a consequence of Mr. Guilford’s decision to use the phones that he knew would result in 

the calls being recorded. The Court’s concern results only upon the government listening to the 

calls, which, as noted above, has not resulted in prejudice to Mr. Guilford. Again, there is no hint 

that the AUSA or those currently involved in this action have gained any information about Mr. 

Guilford’s trial strategy or otherwise. While the entire situation is unfortunate, it does not 

convince the Court that dismissal of the indictment is warranted. Thus, the motion to dismiss the 

indictment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2024 

Case 1:24-cr-00022-JLT-SKO Document 78 Filed 12/26/24 Page 4 of 4