Legal Opinion

United States v. Kwang Fu Peng

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 8, 1985No. S 84 Cr. 823 (DNE)PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

EDELSTEIN, District Judge:

Information that came to light during the trial of this case presents this court with serious dilemmas. During the cross-examination of the government’s first witness, the defendant’s attorney made reference to a conference held at the defense attorney’s office involving the witness, the defendant, the attorney, and one of the attorney’s partners. The attorney therefore is a potential witness in the trial. This presents two problems. First, whether the defendant’s attorney must be disqualified pursuant to Rule 5-102 of the Disciplinary Rules of the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  2. United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Illinois v. SomervilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Krulewitch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  5. United States v. Bernard McKeonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Fognani v. YoungSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
  2. United States v. Kwang Fu Peng, A/K/A "k.f. Peng,"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  3. Paretti v. Cavalier Label Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1989
  4. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 2, 1985District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
  5. Estate of Andrews Ex Rel. Andrews v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1992

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API