United States v. Hyde

13 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Shuo Qiu

    1:22-cr-00001 (D.N. Mar. I. Jan. 25, 2022)

    In so doing, a court has considerable latitude in inquiring into the defendant's financial status and determining eligibility for court-appointed counsel. See United States v. Hyde, 208 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1054 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2002). This inquiry may extend to ex parte proceedings with the defendant's financial affidavit.

  2. United States v. Burdett

    Criminal Action 20-55 (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2021)

    The Government thus maintains the right to investigate possible perjury in the affidavit after trial and ultimately the truth seeking function will not be compromised. United States v. Hyde, 208 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing United States v. Hickey, 185 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir.1999)). Accordingly, the affidavits should remain sealed.

  3. United States v. Burdett

    CRIMINAL ACTION 20-139 (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2021)

    The Government thus maintains the right to investigate possible perjury in the affidavit after trial and ultimately the truth seeking function will not be compromised. United States v. Hyde, 208 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing United States v. Hickey, 185 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir.1999)). Accordingly, the affidavits should remain sealed.

  4. United States v. Reardon

    1:21-cr-00061-LEW (D. Me. Aug. 13, 2021)

    “[N]umerous courts have acknowledged the tension between a defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in the related context of the requirement that a defendant disclose financial information to obtain court-appointed (CJA) counsel” in some circumstances. Bokhari, 185 F.Supp.3d at 265 (citing, e.g., U.S. v. Hyde, 208 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (financial affidavit to obtain appointed counsel compelled testimony where defendant charged with mail fraud, health care fraud and money laundering); U.S. v. Hickey, 997 F.Supp. 1206, 1208-09 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (motion to unseal financial affidavits denied where defendants charged with mail fraud, wire fraud and securities fraud because of substantial risk of self-incrimination)). Given the nature of the criminal charges asserted against Defendant, further proceedings to determine Defendant's ability to retain counsel would implicate Defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.

  5. United States v. Avenatti

    550 F. Supp. 3d 36 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    In short, Avenatti argues that, unlike the defendants in Harris and its progeny, he faces a " ‘real and appreciable’ hazard of self-incrimination" that justifies sealing the Financial Affidavits altogether. Id. at 6 (quoting United States v. Hyde , 208 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2002) ). Admittedly, Avenatti's argument does find some support in a handful of decisions by district courts in other circuits.

  6. United States v. Hadden

    20 Cr. 468 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2020)

    "The Court has considerable discretion in inquiring into the defendant's finances in determining eligibility for appointed counsel." United States v. Hyde, 208 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2002). "[A] defendant's claim of inability to afford counsel can be rebutted 'by inference and circumstantial evidence.'" Parker, 439 F.3d at 95.

  7. United States v. Dalton

    Case No. 1:17CR00024 (W.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Disclosure of financial affidavits to the government can implicate both a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his or her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Hyde, 208 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (noting that "the weight of authority has either held or assumed that financial disclosures made as a condition to obtaining appointed counsel is sufficiently compelled so as to invoke Fifth Amendment concerns"). For this reason, courts have held that the government cannot use a defendant's financial affidavit to attempt to prove its case-in-chief against the defendant.

  8. United States v. Gettel

    Case No.: 16-cr-1099-WQH (S.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2017)

    United States v. Hickey, 997 F. Supp. 1206, 1210 (N.D. Cal. 1998). See e.g., Ellsworth, 547 F.2d at 1098 (the Ninth Circuit approved of a district court's offer of an in camera review of defendant's financial statement, to be sealed after review); see also United States v. Hyde, 208 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (district court granted defendant's Motion to Keep Financial Affidavit Under Seal when the information contained in the affidavit may have been incriminating). No such requests have been proffered to the Court by the defense.

  9. United States v. Bokhari

    185 F. Supp. 3d 254 (D. Mass. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    SeeUnited States v. Salemme , 985 F.Supp. 197, 201–203 (D.Mass.1997) (where government sought access to defendants' CJA information, the parties before the court "disagree[d], however, about how the tension between defendants' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights should be resolved"); see also, e.g.,United States v. Hyde , 208 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (N.D.Cal.2002) (where defendant was charged with mail fraud, health care fraud, and money laundering, the court concluded that his financial affidavit to obtain appointed counsel was compelled testimony that was protected by the Fifth Amendment); United States v. Hickey , 997 F.Supp. 1206, 1208–09 (N.D.Cal.1998) (where defendant was charged with mail fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud, the court denied the government's motion to unseal financial affidavits submitted in support of a request for appointed counsel because defendants faced a substantial risk of self-incrimination). ContrastHilsen , 2004 WL 2284388 at *9–10 (where defendant was charged with unlawful failure to pay a court-ordered child-support obligation, the court denied defendant's request to file a financial affidavit ex parte and under seal because defendant failed to demonstrate that the conflict between his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights was "immediate and real").

  10. United States v. Ponzo

    CR. NO. 97-40009-NMG (D. Mass. Jan. 3, 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Prohibiting government from using financial affidavit and other information until after conclusion of the prosecution of the indictment for which defendant provided financial affidavit and information, in order to effectuate Defendant's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege

    If, on the other hand, the information remains sealed until after conclusion of the trial on the pending charges, Ponzo's Fifth Amendment interest will diminish vis a vis the Government's interest in disclosure of the information for purposes of pursing a perjury charge: "[t]he Government . . . maintains the right to investigate possible perjury in [the CJA 23 and/or supplemental form] after trial and ultimately the truth seeking function will not be compromised." United States v. Hyde, 208 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1054 (N.D.Cal. 2002)(internal citation omitted). The Branker rubric makes eminent sense.