United States v. Carona

660 F.3d 360 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D served as Sheriff of Orange County. D received financial support from Donald Haidl. Haidl testified at trial that D 'offered [him] the complete power of the sheriff's department for raising money and supporting him.' After Carona took office, Haidl continued to make payments to Carona. Haidl offered D and Assistant Sheriff George Jamarillo each a 'bribe not to take bribes' in the amount of $1000 per month, which they accepted. Haidl gave D a speedboat in 2001, which they concealed through a sham transaction. The federal government began an investigation. Haidl admitted his own criminal misconduct and signed a cooperation plea agreement with the government. Government attorneys instructed Haidl to meet with D and to make surreptitious recordings of their meetings. D was represented by attorney Dean Stewart, who had notified the government that he was representing D. P got desperate and equipped Haidl with two fake 'subpoena attachments' that identified certain records that Haidl was to tell D he had been subpoenaed to produce. These documents referred to cash payments Haidl provided to D and to the sham transaction they used to conceal the gift of the speedboat. In the next meeting, D made statements that suggested both that he had received payments and gifts from Haidl and that he wanted Haidl to lie to the grand jury about these transactions. D was charged with tampering with a grand jury witness. D moved before trial to suppress his statements to Haidl because they allegedly were obtained in violation of Rule 2-100 which prohibits an attorney from 'communicating directly or indirectly with a party [the attorney] knows to be represented by another lawyer.' The district court held that the prosecutors had violated Rule 2-100, but the court declined to suppress the evidence. The jury acquitted D on everything but the witness tampering. D moved for an arrest of judgment and a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the motion. D appealed.