United States v. Hammad
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
858 F.2d 834 (1988)
Brothers Taiseer and Eid Hammad (respondents), owners of a department store, were investigated for submitting false invoices to conceal a Medicaid fraud scheme after a suspicious fire at the store raised concerns the brothers were trying to destroy incriminating sales records. Their supplier, Wallace Goldstein, agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and, at the prosecutor's direction, falsely told Taiseer he had been subpoenaed to produce real sales records, prompting Taiseer to urge Goldstein to conceal the fraud during a recorded meeting. Taiseer moved to suppress the recordings, arguing the prosecutor had effectively communicated with him directly through Goldstein while knowing Taiseer was represented by counsel, violating the ethical rule against contacting represented parties (DR 7-104(A)(1)); the trial judge agreed and suppressed the recordings, and the prosecution appealed.
Whether future trial courts may suppress evidence a prosecutor obtains, even pre-indictment, by using an undercover informant to communicate with a party known to be represented by counsel, in violation of DR 7-104(A)(1).