Legal Opinion
United States v. Buda
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided August 31, 1989No. CR-88-150TPublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
TELESCA, Chief Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant Peter Buda has moved to suppress evidence of a taped conversation with a Government informant made prior to his indictment on the grounds that the Government’s prosecutor violated MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY DR 7-104(A)(l) when he consented to the wired communication without first notifying the defendant’s attorney. For the reasons discussed below, I find the prosecution’s conduct to fall well within the boundaries of DR 7-104(A)(l) established in United States v. Hammad, 858 F.2d 834 (2d Cir.1988) and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Maine v. MoultonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. Benjamin JamilCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- United States v. Eid Hammad, A/K/A Eddie Hammad, and Taiseer HammadCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- United States v. Eid Hammad, A/K/A Eddie Hammad, and Taiseer HammadCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Grievance Committee for the Southern District of New York v. Robert M. SimelsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- University Patents, Inc. v. KligmanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
- Miano v. AC & R Advertising, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- United States v. HarloffDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1992
- Thompson v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.