United States v. Hyde

2 Citing cases

  1. 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").

  2. 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.