01-2933, 01-2934 U.S. v. Anderson

Listen to this article

“Anderson claims that the district judge should have held a hearing to determine whether Hoffeditz had, in fact, breached confidences that made their way to the feds… Judge Gilbert was well within his discretion to deny a hearing. Anderson’s argument has three analytical steps, two of which he has not alleged with sufficient detail, definiteness, or specificity to warrant a hearing… The first step in Anderson’s argument seems clear enough. In an affidavit, Anderson said, ‘I have discussed my case with Mr. Hoffeditz, answered all questions asked of me by Mr. Hoffeditz, and have conveyed my confidences with respect to all criminal investigations concerning me to Mr. Hoffeditz.’ The state charges arose from the June 29, 1999, traffic stop, which also formed the basis for the federal indictment against Anderson for carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime.

“But Anderson stumbles on the second step. He alleges that Hoffeditz may have breached these confidences by passing the information on to Debra Garrett, Cockerell, or Pennington; he does not allege that Hoffeditz breached such confidences. He relies merely on the coincidence of Hoffeditz’s client list… These facts are insufficient to trigger a concern that Hoffeditz, a member (apparently in good standing) of the Illinois bar, was breaching confidences willy-nilly.

“Last, even assuming Hoffeditz breached his duty of confidentiality, Anderson has not identified what information Hoffeditz’s clients passed along to the agents or prosecutors in this case that prejudiced him at trial… Anderson here has simply failed to identify information presented at trial that he thinks originated in his discussions with Hoffeditz or that he thinks derived from leads provided by those discussions.”

Affirmed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Gilbert, J., Evans, J.