U.S. v. Boender

In prosecution on bribery-related charges arising out of defendant’s payments on home improvements to alderman’s house in exchange for alderman’s support of defendant’s request for zoning change on defendant’s property, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting govt.’s motion in limine to admit evidence concerning defendant’s production of fabricated invoice that involved testimony by defendant’s counsel under crime fraud exception to attorney-client privilege. Dist. Ct. could properly conduct contested in camera hearing in which testimony was elicited in govt.’s presence, especially where govt. was aware of existence of instant invoice, and where record suggested that back-dated invoice had been fabricated. Moreover, record supported Dist. Ct.’s finding that crime fraud exception to attorney-client applied where testimony indicated that defendant and his attorney discussed methods to present defendant in most favorable light in future meeting with govt., that defendant’s attorney expressed doubt over whether subject invoice had ever been sent to alderman, and that defendant intended for his attorney to communicate false story about invoice to govt.