Burgos v. United States
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-10087
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Burgos v. United States, Judge Caproni ordered a privilege waiver and affidavits before the Government responds to Burgos’s conviction challenge.
Jonathan Burgos, his former lawyers David A. Ruhnke and Jonathan Rosenberg, and the Government. Burgos’s § 2255 motion remains subject to the ordered waiver, affidavits, response, and reply deadlines.
What happened
In Burgos v. United States, Jonathan Burgos asked the court to set aside his convictions, claiming that his former lawyers provided ineffective assistance. The Government said it needed testimony from those lawyers to respond.
The court determined that the lawyers’ testimony was necessary. It explained that by making the motion, Burgos waived attorney-client privilege—the protection for confidential communications with his lawyers—to the extent relevant to his claim.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Burgos to return a signed and notarized authorization by March 8, 2024. His former lawyers must then submit sworn statements by April 5, the Government may respond by April 19, and Burgos may reply by May 24. The order states that the court will deny the motion if Burgos does not authorize the needed disclosure; it did not decide the ineffective-assistance claim in this order.
The detailed version
- Burgos v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-10087
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 8, 2024
Background
Jonathan Burgos filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking relief from his convictions based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion is connected to his criminal case, No. 20-CR-182 (VEC). Burgos’s former trial counsel was David A. Ruhnke, Esq., and his former appellate counsel was Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq.
Attorney-client privilege
The Government told the court that it needed testimony from both former lawyers to respond to Burgos’s allegations. After reviewing the motion papers, the court agreed that their testimony was needed. The court stated that filing the motion waived Burgos’s attorney-client privilege—the legal protection for confidential communications between a client and lawyer—as a matter of law, but it also recognized that ethical concerns could limit the lawyers’ disclosure of information without a court order or informed consent.
Order
The court ordered Burgos to sign and return the attached Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver (Informed Consent) form by March 8, 2024. The form must authorize Ruhnke and Rosenberg to disclose confidential communications only in response to the court’s order and only as necessary to address the ineffective-assistance allegations. The form must be signed by Burgos and notarized.
The court ordered the former lawyers to file sworn testimony in affidavit form by April 5, 2024. It extended the Government’s deadline to respond to April 19, 2024, and gave Burgos until May 24, 2024, to file a reply. Unless the court ordered otherwise, the motion would be considered fully submitted on that date.
Judge Valerie Caproni stated that if the court did not receive Burgos’s signed authorization by March 8, the court would deny his § 2255 motion because he had not authorized disclosure needed for the Government to respond. This order did not decide whether Burgos received ineffective assistance or whether his convictions should be set aside.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.