1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 849 F.Supp.
  5. 849 F.Supp. 417 (1994)
 

U.S. v. MARCUS

Crim. No. PJM 93-0286.

849 F.Supp. 417 (1994)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jay MARCUS, Hedviga Herman, Fredrick Shainfeld, Amirul Islam and Muhammad Uddin, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Baltimore Division.

April 21, 1994.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Christopher B. Mead, Asst. U.S. Atty., Baltimore, MD, for plaintiff.

Don O. Burley, Washington, DC, David B. Irwin, Baltimore, MD, J. Sedwick Sollers, III, Washington, DC, for defendants.

OPINION

MESSITTE, District Judge.

I.

In this case, joining the nearly unanimous opinion of courts that have spoken to the issue, the Court holds that a prosecutor's use of a wired informant for the purpose of recording conversations with the represented target of a criminal investigation, even to the point of suggesting topics to be discussed, does not violate professional disciplinary rules. Accordingly, the Court denies the motions of...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases