Brown v. United States
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-09146
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Brown v. United States, Judge Roman required a privilege waiver before evaluating Brown’s supplemental challenge to his conviction and sentence.
Lawrence Brown, his former trial attorney, the Government, and the court proceedings on Brown’s supplemental post-conviction motion.
What happened
In Brown v. United States, Lawrence Brown challenged his conviction and sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to seek post-conviction relief. His supplemental challenge alleged that his trial lawyer failed to advise him of his right to testify. Brown was representing himself.
The court allowed Brown’s former lawyer to discuss the allegations with the Government and provide sworn testimony if needed. It ordered Brown to sign and return a notarized attorney-client privilege waiver by May 15, 2023. The court warned that failing to return the waiver would result in denial of the supplemental challenge and paused the briefing schedule.
Judge Roman did not decide whether Brown’s lawyer provided ineffective assistance or whether Brown was entitled to relief. The order addressed only the disclosure authorization and the next steps for the supplemental motion.
The detailed version
- Brown v. United States · No. 7:22-cv-09146
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 13, 2023
Background
Lawrence Brown was convicted by a jury of two Hobbs Act robberies and of brandishing a firearm during crimes of violence. He received a 303-month sentence, which the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later modified to 300 months. Brown filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and sentence. He later filed a supplemental motion alleging that his trial counsel failed to advise him of his right to testify in his own defense.
Brown was proceeding without a lawyer. The Government asked to obtain an affidavit from Brown’s former trial attorney because it did not have access to the communications between Brown and that attorney. Those communications could be protected by attorney-client privilege, which generally limits disclosure of confidential communications between a lawyer and client.
Court’s Order
The court authorized Brown’s former attorney, identified in the attached waiver form as Paul Peter Rinaldo, to discuss the issues raised in the supplemental motion with the Government and, if necessary and appropriate, provide sworn testimony addressing Brown’s ineffective-assistance allegations.
The court ordered Brown to sign and return the accompanying attorney-client privilege waiver by May 15, 2023. The waiver authorized disclosure only in response to a court order and only to the extent necessary to address the allegations in the supplemental motion. The court stated that failure to return the waiver would result in denial of the supplemental motion because Brown would not have authorized disclosure of information needed for the Government to respond. The court also stayed the existing briefing schedule for the supplemental motion pending Brown’s response.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not decide the merits of Brown’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective. It also did not decide whether Brown’s conviction or sentence should be set aside. It addressed attorney-client privilege, the former attorney’s possible testimony, and the procedure for continuing the supplemental motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.