La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
The Crime Fraud Exception: Evidentiary Privileges in the Fight Against Corruption in the United States
Barra lateral del artículo
PDF
FLIP
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
El artículo se centra en el estudio de la figura del crime fraud exception o “excepción por delito o fraude”, creada en los Estados Unidos, que tiene como fin ser una herramienta para combatir la corrupción, mediante la eliminación, en ciertos casos, de la reserva de la doctrina de producto del abogado o del propio privilegio abogado-cliente. En primer lugar, el artículo esboza los elementos sobre los que puede recaer la excepción, para luego determinar su naturaleza y alcance. Luego, determina sus aspectos procedimentales, en pro de su invocación y, finalmente, analiza su impacto previo y retos futuros en cuanto a su aplicación frente a la corrupción financiera y política. Concluye señalando que la excepción por delito o fraude es una herramienta poderosa en la lucha contra la corrupción, siempre y cuando se facilite su activación por parte de los abogados.
Palabras clave:
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Referencias (VER)
Advisory Committee’s Notes to 1970 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ.
Auburn K. Daily y S. Britta Thornquist, Has the Exception Outgrown the Privi¬lege? Exploring the Application of the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney- Client Privilege, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 583, 585–86 (2003).
Christopher Paul Galanek, The Impact of the Zolin Decision on the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege, 24 Ga. L. Rev. 1115, 1122 (1990).
Cyrus Mehri, Richard Condit, and Cleveland Lawrence iii, Why Giuliani and Trump Can’t Hide Behind Attorney-Client Privilege, Politico (Oct. 3, 2019).
Dan Mangan y Chris Eudaily, Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Michael Cohen Cooperating with New York Prosecutors in Probe of Whether Trump Organization Falsified Records, CNBC (Sep. 11, 2019).
David J. Fried, Too High A Price for Truth: The Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege for Contemplated Crimes and Frauds, 64 N.C. L. Rev. 443, 444 (1986).
Dennis J. Ventry, Jr., Stitches for Snitches: Lawyers As Whistleblowers, 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1455, 1552 n. 15 and Appendix (2017).
Edward J. Imwinkelried, The Need to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): The Threat to the Future of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 30 Vill. L. Rev. 1465, 1466 (1985).
Elaina Plott, Rudy Giuliani l ‘You should be happy for your country that I unco¬vered this’, The Atlantic (Sept. 26, 2019), available at: https://www.theatlantic. Com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879.
Geoffrey C. Hazard, An Historical Perspective on the Attorney-Client Privilege, 66 Cal. Rev. 1061, 1062 (1978). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3479905
H. Lowell Brown, The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of Corporate Counseling, 87 Ky. L.J. 1191, 1210 (1999).
Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Release No. 34-64545, 7 C.F.R. §§ 240, 249 (2016).
Ladd, Privileges, 1965 law & soc. ord. 555, 577.
Roger C. Cramton et al., Legal and Ethical Duties of Lawyers after Sarbanes- Oxley, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 725, 784 (2004).
Tom McCarthy y Ben Jacobs, Michael Cohen, Trump’s Former Lawyer, Pleads Guilty in New York Court, The Guardian (Aug. 21, 2018).
Two Foreign-Born Men Who Helped Giuliani on Ukraine Arrested on Campaign- Finance Charges, The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 10, 2019).
Alexander v. U.S., 138 U.S. 353, 358, (1891).
Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 293 F.R.D. 420, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Brennan Center for Justice v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 697 F.3d 184, 207 (2d Cir. 2012).
Case No. 18-MJ-3161 (SDNY April 27, 2018).
Clark v. U.S., 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1231364
Coleman v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 106 F.R.D. 201, 208 (D.D.C. 1985).
Diamond v. Stratton, 95 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
Drummond Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, llp, 885 F.3d 1324, 1337 (11th Cir. 2018).
Feld v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 991 F. Supp. 2d 242, 247 (D.D.C. 2013).
Granada Corp. v. Honorable First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, 227-28
(Tex. 1992).
Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Gutter v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 124 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1300-01 (S.D. Fla. 2000).
Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F. Supp. 1332, 1357 (E.D. Va. 1987).
Harris Mgmt., Inc. v. Coulombe, 151, A.3d 7, 18-19 (Me. 2016).
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1049/ji-3a-2.1947.0056
Howell’s State Trials 1139 (1743).
In re Bairnco Corp. Sec. Litig., 148 F.R.D. 91, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Schafer, 66 P.3d 1036, 1044 (Wash. 2003).
In re General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 1998).
In re Grand Jury Investigation (Schroeder), 842 F.2d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 1987).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 269 (3d Cir. 2006)
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2016).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374, 379 (3d Cir. 1990).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *1
(D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *8
(D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).
In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 417 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2005).
In re G rand Jury P roceedings #5 Empaneled January 28, 2004, 4 01 F.3d 247, 253(4th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings #5, 401 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d at 348.
In re Grand Jury proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1996).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury Sept. Term, 33 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 1994).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1039 (2d Cir. 1984).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 1997).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 731 F.2d 1032, 1041 (2d Cir. 1984).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).
In re Grand Subpoena, 745 F.3d 681, 687 (3d Cir. 2014).
In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1982).
In re John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 491 (2d Cir. 1982).
In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1994).
In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir.1981).
In re Pub. Def. Serv., 831 A.2d at 902.
In re Sealed Case, 107 F.3d 46, 50 (D.C.Cir.1997). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2806643
In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Intervenor v. United States (In re Grand Jury Subpoenas), 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996).
MC Asset Recovery, LLC v. Castex Energy, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-076-Y, 2012 WL 12919303, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2012).
Monon Corp. v. Stoughton Trailers, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 99, 104 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Nat.-Immunogenics Corp. v. Newport Trial Grp., No. sacv1502034jvsjcgx, 2018 WL 6137597, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) on reconsideration in part, No. sacv152034jvsjcgx, 2019 WL 3110021 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2019).
Nobelpharma Ab v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1241, 1261 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 517 (M.D.N.C. 1986).
Ott v. State, 222 S.W. 261, 263 (Tx. 1920).
Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1271-72 (11th Cir. 1983).
People v. Radojcic, 998 N.E. 1212, 1220-21 (Ill. 2013).
Pfeifer v. State Farm Ins. Co., 1997 WL 276085, *3 (E.D. La. 1997).
San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v. Baswell-Guthrie, 897 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1215 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
Stirum v. Whalen, 811 F. Supp. 78, 82 (N.D.N.Y. 1993).
Sutton v. Stevens Painton Corp., 951 N.E.2d 91, 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Towne Place Condo. Ass’n v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 284 F. Supp. 3d 889, 895 (N.D. Ill. 2018).
Tremmel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 53 (1980).
U.S. Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156, 164 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
U.S. v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir. 1999).
U.S. v. Buitrago-Dugand, 712 F. Supp. 1045, 1048 (D.P.R. 1989).
U.S. v. Loften, 507 F. Supp. 108, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1503-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
United States v. Doe, 429 F.3d 450, 454 (3d Cir.2005).
United States v. Gallego, No. 4:18-cr-01537, 2018 U.S. Dist. lexis 152055 ( D. Ariz. Sept. 6, 2018).
United States v. Moazzeni, 906 F. Supp. 2d 505, 517 (E.D. Va. 2012).
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237 (1975).
United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 556 (1989).
Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981).
Reglas federales de Procedimiento Civil.
Citado por
