Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


June 16, 2004.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES HAIGHT, District Judge


At the conclusion of a hearing on May 7, 2004, the Court ruled from the bench that it would uphold the claim of Gregory Cherry, expressed by his former attorney, Maurice Sercarz, Esq., that conversations between Cherry and Mr. Sercarz that took place in May 2002 are privileged and that Mr. Sercarz cannot be compelled to testify as to the contents of those conversations. On May 7, 2004 the Court indicated that an opinion setting forth its reasons in full would be filed. This is that opinion.

In a decision reported at 188 F. Supp.2d 429 (S.D.N.Y., 2002) I granted the defendants' motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P. This decision was based principally on the presentation of new evidence in the form of testimony from Christopher Thomas. In his testimony, Thomas reported that Gregory Cherry made statements to Thomas exonerating defendants of the crimes for which they were convicted by inculpating himself. I admitted Thomas's testimony into evidence under FRE 804(b)(3) as describing a statement aby Cherry against the latter's penal interest. My evidentiary ruling turned upon the existence of corroborating circumstances indicating the trustworthiness of those declarations. There were a number of corroborating circumstances, including comparable declarations that Joyce London, Esq., counsel for defendant Rodriguez, described Cherry having made to her in an affidavit.

  The government moved for reconsideration of this evidentiary ruling and, therefore, of the decision to grant defendants a new trial. In support of the motion, AUSA Sharon McCarthy submitted an affirmation dated September 3, 2002 which stated in part at ¶ 7:
The Government determined though a proffer by Cherry's attorney, Maurice Sercarz, Esq., that was obtained on May 29, 2002, that Cherry continues to maintain that Camacho and Rodriguez committed the Ocasio/Garcia murders. In addition, according to the attorney proffer, Cherry disputes London's allegations that Cherry had implied, in conversations with her, that he was responsible for the Ocasio/Garcia murders.
The substance of those declarations ascribed by AUSA McCarthy's to Cherry are, of course, inconsistent with the testimony of Christopher Thomas. If they were entitled to consideration by the Court, they would tend to cast doubt upon the trustworthiness of Cherry's declarations to Thomas, potentially tipping the scales against admission into evidence of Thomas's testimony.
  The question then arose as to how Cherry's declarations, described in his attorney's proffer as recounted in AUSA McCarthy's affidavit, could find their way into the evidentiary record on this hearing, given that Cherry had in the past adamantly refused to testify in the absence of considerations and undertakings that the government had been equally adamant in refusing to grant. In these circumstances, I directed in an opinion reported at 2004 WL 235257 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2004 that Mr. Sercarz testify, adding in that opinion that:
Since Mr. Sercarz communicated to the government a proffer which Cherry undoubtedly authorized him to make, it would not appear that the attorney-client privilege would bar any testimony which I intend to receive. I state that proposition tentatively because counsel have not had an opportunity to address it. 2004 WL 235257, at *8 (emphasis added).
  The italicized perception on my part was based upon the well-established rule that "[w]hen otherwise privileged communications are disclosed to a third party, the disclosure destroys confidentiality upon which the privilege is premised." In re Keeper of the Records of XYZ Corporation, 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir., 2003). See also, In re Von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that disclosure of otherwise privileged communications between an attorney and his client made with the authority and permission of the client destroys the privilege with respect to those disclosures); United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82, 87-91 (2d Cir. 1997) (in dicta, reiterating the rulings articulated in Von Bulow). Within the context of that rule, I assumed (1) that Sercarz had revealed portions of his privileged communications with Cherry to the government, and (2) that these revelations had been authorized by Cherry, thereby waiving his privilege to confidentiality in those communications.

  As it turned out, however, my assumptions were incorrect, and the tentative nature of my perception was prescient. When notified of his summons to testify, Mr. Sercarz promptly invoked the attorney-client privilege on Cherry's behalf. Specifically, in a letter to the Court dated February 24, 2004, Mr. Sercarz took issue with Court's assumptions of fact, stating that, in his opinion, "Mr. Cherry did not desire that I waive the attorney-client privilege in my conversations with the United States Attorney's Office."

  I invited counsel for the government and defendants to comment on the viability of Sercarz's assertion of privilege on behalf of Cherry in the circumstances presented. All parties declined to express a substantive view. The government, in a letter from AUSA Marc Mukasey's dated April 23, 2004 (the "April 23 letter"), provided the best justification for this forbearance, pointing out that determination of the applicability of the attorney client privilege in this case "turns upon whether Cherry authorized Mr. Sercarz to disclose the information conveyed by him to AUSA McCarthy." To determine whether or not Cherry had, explicitly or implicitly, authorized Sercarz to report on his communications with Cherry, the government suggested that the Court "conduct an in camera hearing on the question, at which it could hear from Mr. Sercarz and, if necessary, Cherry," April 23 letter at 1-2, to determine the existence and scope of any waiver of confidence by Cherry.

  On Friday, May 7, 2004, having accepted the government's suggestion, I conducted an in camera examination of Mr. Sercarz on a sealed record for the purpose of determining the circumstances of his discussions with Cherry and subsequently with AUSA McCarthy in May 2002. I put such questions to him as I thought appropriate. Counsel for the government and for both defendants suggested questions of their own. I put these questions to Mr. Sercarz as well, to the extent that they were not repetitive of my own. Mr. Sercarz answered all of these questions in a direct and forthright manner and the Court found his testimony entirely credible. The following facts are established from the record thus made.

  At some point prior to May 9, 2002, the government was made aware that Cherry may have made declarations to other individuals inconsistent his statements to Christopher Thomas. Understandably, the government wished to pursue this subject with Cherry. At that time, as he is now, Cherry was in federal custody serving a lengthy sentence. The government arranged to have Cherry moved to the Manhattan Correctional Center (the "MCC") to facilitate a conversation.

  Quite properly, AUSA McCarthy concluded that Cherry should be represented by counsel. AUSA McCarthy contacted Mr. Sercarz, who had represented Cherry previously, and asked him to contact Cherry in relation to the subject of statements he may have made relating to defendants and the crimes for which they were convicted. Mr. Sercarz agreed to do so, despite the fact that he was not, at that time, actively engaged as Cherry's attorney.

  An interview between Mr. Sercarz and Cherry took place on May 9, 2002 in a conference room in the offices of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Sercarz began the interview by explaining to Cherry the nature of the government's revived interest in him, and asking Cherry if he consented to have Mr. Sercarz represent him as his attorney in that regard. Cherry responded in the affirmative. The attorney-client relationship then attached. Mr. Sercarz and Cherry proceeded to discuss the issues at hand At the end of this preliminary interview, Cherry instructed Mr. Sercarz that he (Cherry) would make no substantive declarations to the government unless the government promised him certain benefits, including immunity from prosecution and consideration for relief from his current sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.

  Mr. Sercarz left Cherry, went to a different room, and entered into a discussion with AUSA McCarthy. Mr. Sercarz found himself in the delicate position familiar to all experienced and reputable defense attorneys: bound by his client's instructions of confidentiality, but also tasked to obtain some benefit for the client. Accordingly, Mr. Sercarz undertook to persuade AUSA McCarthy to have the government grant Cherry immunity from prosecution and Rule 35 consideration by suggesting that if the government did so, then it might, in Mr. Sercarz's view, come to pass that Cherry might have something to say that the government might find useful in relation to their motion for reconsideration of this Court's May 7, 2002 Order.

  It is important to stress that at no time during these negotiations did Mr. Sercarz quote or paraphrase to AUSA McCarthy the substance of any statements that Cherry made to Mr. Sercarz. Mr. Sercarz did not do so because he recognized that he was bound by the attorney-client privilege and that Cherry had instructed Mr. Sercarz to keep their conversations in confidence absent an acceptable quid pro quo from the government.

  At the end of these negotiations, AUSA McCarthy promised to consider the proposed exchange of testimony for immunity and Rule 35 consideration. AUSA McCarthy later told Mr. Sercarz that Cherry would receive no consideration from the government, and elected to pursue the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.