Search court records - party Emily Vermylen, page 5

No. 436 RESPONSE by USA as to Edward Lee Filer regarding MOTION by Edward Lee Filer to dismiss or, ...

Document USA v. Filer et al, 1:19-cr-00565, No. 436 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 30, 2025)

The defendant was never represented by Steven Hartmann in a personal capacity, and certainly not with respect to Freeborn & Peters’ productions of documents in response to subpoenas served on the firm.

Hartmann’s representation of Mr. Filer personally is not capable of dispute; the deposition reflects that the questioning attorney confirmed the obvious: ‘It is my understanding that Mr. Hartmann is here representing you and the firm today.’” (Citing to a statement on page 29 of the transcript) (Motion, p.

The government assumed defense counsel was referring in its April 9, 2021, email to Mr. Hartmann’s representation of Freeborn & Peters, and its corporate representative, Mr. Filer, at the Rule 2004 examination of the law firm.

There were no papers filed; simply defense counsel raising an issue, proffering the area of dispute and his version of the facts, and ultimately the trial court limiting the scope of Mr. Hartmann’s testimony based on the representations that the attorneys for the parties had just made.

Defense counsel did not thereafter correct the misunderstanding, however, and instead went on to state: “First of all, your, Honor, these are all conversations after the subpoena for his deposition was filed in preparation for his deposition.” Exhibit G, Trial Tr. at 1678:22-24 (emphasis supplied).

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Steven Seeger
Analyze Party
- Edward Lee Filer
Analyze Firm
- Arnold & Porter
- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila

No. 399 DOCKETING statement by Edward Lee Filer regarding notice of appeal 398 (Safer, Ronald) (Entered: ...

Document USA v. Filer et al, 1:19-cr-00565, No. 399 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 16, 2025)

Under the well-established precedent set forth in Cohen, Coopers & Lybrand, and Midland Asphalt and provided below, the District Court’s Order denying the Motion is immediately appealable on an interlocutory basis.

Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 659–60 (1977) (where the defendant does not challenge the merits of the charge against him or seek suppression of evidence the government plans to use in obtaining a conviction, but instead contests “the very authority of the Government to hale him into court to face trial on the charge against him,” the “elements of that claim are completely independent of his guilt or innocence” and collateral to the criminal prosecution itself, thus satisfying the second prong of Cohen).

This Court has confirmed that “claims under the Grand Jury Clause may be heard on interlocutory appeal” in the limited circumstance presented by Mr. Filer’s Motion.

Again, the Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” U.S. Const.

The defects Mr. Filer identified thus give rise to the constitutional right not to be tried, the deprivation of which, in turn, “satisfies the Coopers & Lybrand requirement of being ‘effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’” Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 800–01 (citing Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977)).

Cite Document

Analyze