Court Opinion

ID: 9474006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:45:26.45309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:51.237585
License: Public Domain

HENRY WOODS, District Judge.
The United States appeals from an order of the District Court1 quashing grand jury subpoenas duces tecum served upon two attorneys. The attorneys served with these grand jury subpoenas represented American Grain and Related Industries (Agri) during a criminal prosecution which commenced with a July 20, 1983 indictment charging Agri and six of its employees with conspiring to remove and convert to Agri’s use a quantity of wheat owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation, an agency of the United States. 15 U.S.C. § 714m(d). The jury returned guilty verdicts against Agri and three of the employees, but these verdicts were set aside by a penal of this court in United States of America v. American Grain and Related Industries, et al., 763 F.2d 312 (8th Cir.1985).2
Subsequent to the jury verdict against Agri, a grand jury investigation was commenced to determine whether Agri’s President, B.J. O’Dowd, should be prosecuted for conspiring to conceal the removal of the wheat. This grand jury investigation led to the United States Attorney’s discovery of two corporate documents prepared by Agri’s employees on May 5, 1983, immediately prior to the removal of the grain. An order had been entered on the third day of Agri’s trial which should have resulted in its attorneys’ surrendering these two documents to the government. However, when the attorneys complied with the discovery order during trial, they produced approximately 800 documents, which did not include the two referred to above. As a part of the grand jury investigation of B.J. O’Dowd, after Agri’s conviction, the United States Attorney asked Agri’s attorneys to explain why these two documents had not been produced during Agri’s trial. By letter, the attorneys explained that they *206had no firm recollection of seeing the two-documents and that if they had not been produced as required, it was due to inadvertence and the fact that the documents produced during trial were assembled hastily because of the time pressure involved.
Subsequently, the subject grand jury subpoenas duces tecum were issued to the two attorneys directing them to appear before the grand jury and to produce any notes, memoranda or correspondence in their file in any manner related to or discussing the two documents referenced above. These two attorneys retained counsel who successfully moved to quash the subpoenas, based on the assertion of the attorney-client and work product privileges. The District Court held that the government failed to make a prima facie case of fraud or crime practiced by the attorneys and therefore sustained the argument that these privileges precluded enforcement of the grand jury subpoenas.
When a claim of privilege is asserted in the context of resisting compliance with a grand jury subpoena, strong competing principles are at odds. The broad investigatory powers of the grand jury are both historic and essential to their effective operation. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2660, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972). However, these broad investigatory powers do not require production of evidence protected by a valid claim of privilege. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346, 94 S.Ct. 613, 619, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). In this case Agri and its two attor-, neys relied upon the attorney-client and the work product privileges to persuade the District Court to quash the grand jury subpoenas duces tecum.
The attorney-client privilege encourages clients to make a full disclosure of all favorable and unfavorable facts to their legal counsel. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1577, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976). However, the purpose of the attorney-client privilege is not furthered “when the lawyer is consulted not with respect to past wrongdoings but rather to further a continuing or contemplated criminal or fraudulent scheme,” In re Berkley & Co., Inc., 629 F.2d 548, 553 (8th Cir.1980), and therefore the cloak of the attorney-client privilege is removed upon “a prima facie showing that the legal advice was obtained in furtherance of illegal or fraudulent activity____” Id. This exception to the attorney-client privilege is commonly referred to as the crime or fraud exception.
Although the work product privilege “is distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege,” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 N. 11, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170 n. 11, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the court below applied the crime or fraud exception to that privilege, as well as the attorney-client privilege. While this Circuit has recognized the unresolved question of whether or not the crime or fraud exception applies to the work product privilege, In re Murphy, 560 F.2d 326, 337 (8th Cir.1977), the parties have not raised that issue, and we will take the approach of the panel in In re Murphy and assume such an exception exists. Id. at 338.
We review the holding of the District Court that the government failed to make a prima facie case of fraud or crime on the part of Agri and its attorneys under an abuse of discretion standard. In re Berkley & Co., Inc., supra at 553. Considerable deference must be accorded the rulings of the trial court in resolving issues such as presented in the instant appeal. Judge Vietor presided over the underlying two-week criminal trial of Agri and its employees, as well as the motions to quash the instant subpoenas. It was Judge Victor’s orders which the government claimed were violated by Agri’s counsel, leading to the claim of crime or fraud. His familiarity with the facts and actions of counsel below should not be lightly regarded.
Notwithstanding the significance these two documents might have upon the retrial of Agri and its three employees, the court below correctly concluded that it would be sheer speculation to infer that these doc*207uments would have affected the verdicts as to the other defendants.3
The government asserts that the lower court placed too great of a burden upon it in its application of the prima facie standard. Citing In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395 (D.C.Cir.1983), the government argues that it should not be required to prove the intent of the attorneys in order to override the privileges. The opinions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia do not support the government’s argument herein that it is not required to make any showing of intent on the part of the attorneys. The measure of intent required by that Circuit is a matter of considerable dispute. Compare In re Sealed Case, supra at 402, 403, and In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 812 and 825 (D.C.Cir.1982). The question of intent in this context should not become a “minitrial,” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973), but it cannot be ignored. Mere coincidences in the physical evidence cannot form the basis for application of the crime or fraud exception to those privileges. In re Sealed Case, supra at 402. This is precisely what the District Court herein refused to do in the case at bar. He declined to infer that the government made a prima facie case of fraud or crime from the fact that the two documents were not included in the 800 documents surrendered during trial. This fact against the backdrop of the underlying criminal investigation of Agri forms the core of the government’s attempt to make a case for application of the crime or fraud exception. We agree with the conclusion of the district court that this proof is too speculative.
The District Court’s order quashing the grand jury subpoenas is affirmed.

. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

. For a more detailed statement of the facts leading to the indictment of Agri and the six employees, see Judge George G. Fagg’s opinion reversing these underlying convictions.

. The court must be particularly careful in reviewing attempts to remove the protections afforded by the attorney-client and work product privilege where a new trial of the underlying offense remains to be conducted.