U.S. v. Neill, 952 F.Supp. 834 (1997) 4ii Interference in Attorney-Client Relationship Tal KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Follow by U.S. v. Taylor, DIvIc., February 9, 2011 952 F.Supp• 834 United States District Court, District of Columbia. UNITED STATES of America v. Denis M. NEILL, James P. Neill, Defendants. Crim. Action No. 95-0323 (JHG). Jan. 17, 1997. Synopsis Defendants charged with tax offenses moved to dismiss due to government's invasion of their attorney-client privilege. Government opposed motion. The District Court, Joyce Hens Green, J., held that: (1) government's affirmative decision to invoke "taint team" procedures with regard to handling potentially privileged documents was per se intentional intrusion upon defendants' attorney-client privilege, but (2) government successfully rebutted presumption of harm arising from its decision to use "taint team" procedures. Motion to dismiss denied; motion to supplement record denied. West Headnotes (14) Ill Criminal Law 0-Interference in Attorney-Client Relationship 121 Substantial questions of fundamental fairness are raised when, in connection with criminal prosecution, government invades accused's attorney-client privilege. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6. 1 Cases that cite this headnote Criminal Law For purposes of constitutional violation arising out of government's intrusion upon attorney-client privilege, it matters little whether intrusion occurred prior to initiation of formal adversary proceedings, inasmuch as right to fair trial may be crippled by government interference with attorney-client privilege long before formal commencement of criminal proceeding. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6. I Cases that cite this headnote 131 Criminal Law 4.-Interference in Attorney-Client Relationship Not every government intrusion on attorney-client privilege is constitutional violation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6. 3 Cases that cite this head