United States v. Paris, No. 18-3085 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After defendant pleaded guilty to honest services wire fraud, he claimed that the district court should have dismissed the indictment against him after alleged government misconduct came to light. Defendant was a college president involved in a bribery-and-kickback scheme with three main participants, including a state senator and a business consultant.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that defendant lacked standing to assert a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and he failed to show the constitutional violation that the senator allegedly suffered specifically affected his right to a fair trial. In this case, the senator's attorney had previously represented a law enforcement agent, who was present at an interview between the senator and government agents, in a divorce proceeding. The court also held that a co-defendant's decision to record numerous conversations was made on his own and there was no government action involved that violated defendant's constitutional rights. Finally, the court held that the agent's decision to erase his laptop's hard drive did not entitle defendant to dismissal.
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Kelly and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant did not have standing to asset a violation of another defendant's attorney-client relationship as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is personal to each defendant; nor can defendant show that any violation of the co-defendant's rights affected his right to a fair trial; claim regarding co-defendant's decision to provide government with tapes the co-defendant had made rejected as the government never directed the co-defendant to gather any information on defendant, and without evidence of such action, defendant could not raise Fifth or Sixth Amendment claims; investigating agent's decision to erase his laptop's hard drive did not entitle defendant to dismissal, as defendant's argument that the hard drive contained exculpatory evidence - and evidence different than that he already had - is speculation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.