United States v. Eid Hammad, A/K/A Eddie Hammad, and Taiseer Hammad Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A prosecutor used an informant with a sham subpoena to contact a represented suspect before indictment. The court found this violated the ethical “no-contact” rule but declined to suppress the resulting evidence because the law on the matter was previously unsettled.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the ethical rule prohibiting contact with a represented party (DR 7-104(A)(1)) applies to prosecutors pre-indictment, but creates a broad “authorized by law” exception for legitimate informant use, with sanctions reserved for egregious prosecutorial misconduct.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The government investigated Taiseer Hammad for Medicaid fraud and suspected arson. An Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) learned that Hammad was represented by counsel in the Medicaid matter. The AUSA then directed an informant, Wallace Goldstein, to arrange and record a meeting with Hammad. To facilitate this, the AUSA provided Goldstein with a sham grand jury subpoena to show Hammad, creating a pretense for their conversation. During the recorded meetings, Hammad made incriminating statements and encouraged Goldstein to lie to the grand jury and conceal evidence. After being indicted on mail fraud and obstruction of justice charges, Hammad moved to suppress the recordings. He argued the AUSA violated Disciplinary Rule (DR) 7-104(A)(1), the ethical “no-contact” rule, by using Goldstein as an “alter ego” to communicate with him while knowing he was represented by counsel. The district court found a violation and suppressed the evidence.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a prosecutor violate Disciplinary Rule 7-104(A)(1) by using an informant equipped with a sham subpoena to communicate with a suspect known to be represented by counsel before indictment, and if so, is suppression of the resulting evidence an appropriate remedy?
Yes, the prosecutor violated DR 7-104(A)(1), but suppression of the evidence was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mo
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a prosecutor violate Disciplinary Rule 7-104(A)(1) by using an informant equipped with a sham subpoena to communicate with a suspect known to be represented by counsel before indictment, and if so, is suppression of the resulting evidence an appropriate remedy?
Conclusion
This case is a landmark in professional responsibility, clarifying that the "no-contact" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
Legal Rule
Disciplinary Rule 7-104(A)(1), which prohibits a lawyer from communicating with a represented Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non p
Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit first rejected the government's argument that DR 7-104(A)(1) is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The ethical no-contact rule (DR 7-104(A)(1)) applies to prosecutors in pre-indictment