Legal Opinion
United States v. Gasparik
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 8, 2001No. 00 CR 0650 SASPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
On March 2, 2001, on the fifth day of trial, the Government moved for a declaration that the testimony of Jay J. Hait — an attorney who had represented defendant Michael T. Gasparik in his capacity as an associate of co-defendant Roger L. Fidler, also an attorney' — is not precluded by the attorney-client privilege. 1 Defendants object to the admission of Hait’s testimony on several grounds. For the reasons discussed below, Hait may not testify in the Government’s direct case. The Government may call Hait as a rebuttal witness, should that be…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. Paul A. BilzerianCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Lawrence Lines v. David Larkins, Warden the District Attorney of the County of Bucks the Attorney General of the State of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Edward E. Colton and Lillian Kaltman v. United States of America, United States of America v. Edward E. ColtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated September 15, 1983 Marc Rich & Co. A.G., Intervenor-Appellant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- In Re Claus Von Bulow, Martha Von Bulow, by Her Next Friends Alexander Auersperg, and Annie Laurie Auersperg-Kneissl v. Claus Von BulowCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Evergreen Trading, LLC ex rel. GN Investments, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- United States v. Rubin/ChambersDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011