Legal Opinion
Molus v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 17, 1999No. 99-15125PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge:
We must decide how, if at all, review can be had of a district judge’s order disquali*670fying an attorney from representing multiple witnesses in a grand jury investigation.
I
A federal grand jury in the District of Nevada is busy investigating the financial transactions of a certain company. Attorney Christopher Kiernan represented several witnesses who were called before the grand jury. The government, seeing the potential for a conflict of interest among his clients, moved to disqualify Kiernan from his multiple representation. The district court held a hearing pursuant…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Wheat v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. RisjordSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. GouveiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Flanagan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In Re Grand Jury Investigation, In The Matter Of Multiple Representation By Christopher Kiernan, Esq. Matthew MolusCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999