United States v. Schulte, S-2 17 Cr. 548 (PAC). (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20200122g63
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2020
Summary: ORDER PAUL A. CROTTY , District Judge . On January 13, 2020, the Court ordered the defendant "to disclose the attorney advice that Schulte relies on to defend against the Government's allegations, which is set forth in the Defendant's letter dated August 26, 2019 (Dkt. 128) and October 10, 2019 (Dkt. 150)." See Dkt. 248, at 2. The Court provided that the "[f]ailure to provide this discovery will preclude reliance on an advice-of-counsel defense at trial." Id. at 13. On January 15, 2020,
Summary: ORDER PAUL A. CROTTY , District Judge . On January 13, 2020, the Court ordered the defendant "to disclose the attorney advice that Schulte relies on to defend against the Government's allegations, which is set forth in the Defendant's letter dated August 26, 2019 (Dkt. 128) and October 10, 2019 (Dkt. 150)." See Dkt. 248, at 2. The Court provided that the "[f]ailure to provide this discovery will preclude reliance on an advice-of-counsel defense at trial." Id. at 13. On January 15, 2020, ..
More
ORDER
PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge.
On January 13, 2020, the Court ordered the defendant "to disclose the attorney advice that Schulte relies on to defend against the Government's allegations, which is set forth in the Defendant's letter dated August 26, 2019 (Dkt. 128) and October 10, 2019 (Dkt. 150)." See Dkt. 248, at 2. The Court provided that the "[f]ailure to provide this discovery will preclude reliance on an advice-of-counsel defense at trial." Id. at 13. On January 15, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter making clear that they are refusing to comply with the Court's order. See Dkt. 253 ("We respectfully disagree with the Court's ruling . . . the defense feels compelled not to disclose to the government the ex parte letters identified by the Court.").
Disagreeing with court orders is not a basis to defy them. Accordingly, as set forth in this Court's prior opinion, the defendant's failure to provide the discovery required by court order-two weeks before trial-precludes reliance on the advice-of-counsel defense at trial.
Source: Leagle
