Mazur v. United States
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:24-cv-02963
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mazur v. United States, Judge Tarnofsky addressed privilege issues in Mazur’s sentence challenge, but the provided text does not show the order’s final action.
Michael Mazur and the United States; the discussion also concerns Mazur’s former counsel and the scope of attorney-client privilege.
What happened
In Mazur v. United States, Michael Mazur asked the court to set aside or correct his sentence, claiming that his former lawyer provided ineffective assistance and requesting a hearing.
The United States opposed the request, and Mazur filed a reply. The opinion explains that raising an ineffective-assistance claim waives attorney-client confidentiality when reviewing the claim fairly requires examining communications with the former lawyer. It also notes that the court has sometimes requested declarations from former lawyers in similar cases.
The provided text does not include an operative ruling or state whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise disposed of Mazur’s motion or hearing request. The opinion is attributed to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky.
The detailed version
- Mazur v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-02963
- Jed Rakoff
- Aug. 14, 2025
Background
On April 18, 2024, Michael Mazur filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge or seek correction of a sentence. He alleged ineffective assistance by prior counsel and requested an evidentiary hearing on that issue. The United States filed an opposition on May 30, 2024, and Mazur filed a reply on June 17, 2024.
Attorney-Client Privilege
The opinion states that asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in a sentence challenge waives attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client, but the court explained that fairness requires examining those communications when a petitioner claims that the lawyer was ineffective. The opinion also states that the court has requested declarations from former counsel in other similar cases.
Disposition
The provided opinion text ends after discussing privilege and prior requests for former-counsel declarations. It does not contain an operative order or state whether Mazur’s motion or request for an evidentiary hearing was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved. Accordingly, the excerpt does not establish a final disposition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.