Motion To Compel Simels Fees

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHAWN GREEN

: : : CRIMINAL NO. JFM-07-066 : : : .oOo.

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH GRAND JURY SUBPOENA The United States of America, by undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Compel Compliance with Grand Jury Subpoena. For the reasons set forth below, said motion should be granted. 1.

On March 21, 2007, the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland returned a

Superseding Indictment charging Defendant Shawn Green with conspiracy to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The Superseding Indictment also charged Shawn Green’s mother Yolanda Crawley with conspiracy to commit money laundering. Crawley has been sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. 2.

Defendant Green was a fugitive from justice since early 2007. He was recently

arrested on or about December 14, 2008, when he was apprehended with other individuals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Green had his initial appearance in the District of Maryland on December 15, 2008. 3.

The evidence in this case alleges a narcotics and money laundering operation

involving Green and numerous individuals in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Florida, and other states. Green is alleged to have distributed several kilograms of cocaine during this conspiracy. Federal

agents have seized over $900,000 in cash from Green and his co-conspirators, have traced the movement of funds among bank accounts linked to Green and others, and have seized several properties in Maryland, Georgia, and Florida used to launder proceeds of their illegal activities. Agents have also seized kilograms of cocaine involved in this conspiracy and distributed in Maryland. Moreover, the Government believes that during Green’s nearly two-year period as a fugitive, he continued to launder proceeds of illegal activity through known co-conspirators in this case. 4.

The Grand Jury is continuing its investigation of Green and other individuals. The

Government expects to seek additional charges in this case. 5.

On January 21, 2009, the Grand Jury issued a subpoena to Green’s current attorney,

Robert Simels, Esq., requesting information concerning attorney fees and retainers received for the representation of Green, the amount of funds received, the identity of the individuals who provided such funds, and the dates and manner in which such funds were provided (i.e., cash, check, wire, etc.). In lieu of personal appearance before the Grand Jury, Simels was granted the option of mailing the documents to the Grand Jury through the United States Attorney’s Office. 6.

Simels has refused to comply with the grand jury subpoena and has asserted a Sixth

Amendment privilege not to respond. Simels states that he will not provide the requested information without direction from this Court. 7.

The Fourth Circuit has held that subpoenas for attorney fee records do not violate the

Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See In re Grand Jury Matter (Special Grand Jury Narcotics) (Under Seal), 926 F.2d 348, 351 (4th Cir. 1991) (affirming Your Honor’s ruling upholding a grand jury subpoena for attorney fee information). As Your Honor previously stated in the case cited above, “It is well settled that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the Sixth Amendment prohibits

the disclosure of information concerning fee arrangements between an attorney and his clients in response to a grand jury subpoena.” Id. at 349. See also Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 402 (4th Cir. 1999) (“The identity of the client, the amount of the fee, the identification of payment by case file name, and the general purpose of the work performed are usually not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.”). 8.

The Grand Jury must be free to continue its investigation of Green and other

individuals who have committed alleged violations of federal law. The Supreme Court has confirmed that a “grand jury’s investigation is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 13 (1973). Moreover, the prosecutor’s “good faith inquiry into other charges within the scope of the grand jury’s lawful authority is not prohibited even if it uncovers further evidence against an indicted person.” In re Antitrust Grand Jury Investigation, 714 F.2d 347, 350 (4th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 9.

For the above reasons, the Government asks that this Court compel Robert Simels,

Esq. to comply with the Grand Jury subpoena for attorney fee records. A proposed order is attached for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted, Rod J. Rosenstein United States Attorney

By:_______/s/____________________ Kwame J. Manley Assistant United States Attorney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHAWN GREEN

: : : CRIMINAL NO. JFM-07-066 : : : .oOo. ORDER

Upon consideration of the Government’s motion to compel grand jury compliance, and the defendant’s opposition thereto, it is this ____ day of February 2009, hereby ORDERED that the Government’s motion to compel compliance with the grand jury subpoena is GRANTED, and it is further ORDERED that Robert Simels, Esq. shall comply with said subpoena within 10 days of the date of this Order.

______________________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the above pleadings were mailed on February 5, 2009 to counsel through the case management/electronic case filing system:

Robert M. Simels, Esq. 230 Park Avenue 10th Floor New York, New York 10169

________/s/___________________ Kwame J. Manley Assistant United States Attorney