EDWARDS v. United States

D. New Jersey

EDWARDS v. United States

DecidedDecember 3, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-07929

StatusUnknown

This text of EDWARDS v. United States (EDWARDS v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

EDWARDS v. United States, (D.N.J. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DENNIS EDWARDS, Case No. 24–cv–07929–ESK Petitioner,

v. OPINION AND ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the request of the United States, upon notice to pro se petitioner Dennis Edwards, for an Order granting the United States permission to interview petitioner’s former defense counsel, Howard Lesnik, Esq, in connection with the United States’s opposition to petitioner’s pending motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Motion). (ECF No. 13.) The Motion alleges that petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in his underlying criminal case, Crim. No. 12–00242. (ECF No. 1 p. 3.) The United States argues that petitioner has placed his former counsel’s representation of him at issue by raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and that it is necessary to interview former defense counsel concerning any discussions he may have had with petitioner regarding the matters raised in the Motion to prepare the United States’s response to the pending Motion. (ECF No. 12 pp. 1, 2.) Petitioner has not filed any response to the United States’s request. I find that petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel impliedly waives attorney-client privilege with respect to communications necessary to prove or disprove petitioner’s allegations. See Cvjeticanin v. United States, No. 19-00549, 2021 WL 2261589, at *1 (D.N.J. June 3, 2021) (citing Emmanouil v. Roggio, 499 F. App’x 195, 201 (3d Cir. 2012); Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 863 (3d Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, the Government may interview former counsel for petitioner, Howard Lesnik, Esq., for the purpose of obtaining all reasonably necessary information to prove or disprove petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. I further find that the United States’s interview of defense counsel is necessary to facilitate its response to, as well as this Court’s consideration of, petitioner’s pending Motion. The Court will extend the time for the United States to file its answer. Accordingly, IT IS on this 2nd day of December 2024 ORDERED that: 1. The United States’s request at ECF No. 13 is granted. 2. The United States may interview petitioner’s prior attorney, Howard Lesnik, Esq., prior to filing its answer in this matter. Petitioner’s former attorney remains free to speak or not to speak with the United States as he so chooses. 3. The United States is directed to file its answer to the Motion within 60 days of the entry of this Order. 4. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

/s/ Edward S. Kiel EDWARD S. KIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DENNIS EDWARDS, Case No. 24–cv–07929–ESK Petitioner,

v. OPINION AND ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the request of the United States, upon notice to pro se petitioner Dennis Edwards, for an Order granting the United States permission to interview petitioner’s former defense counsel, Howard Lesnik, Esq, in connection with the United States’s opposition to petitioner’s pending motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Motion). (ECF No. 13.) The Motion alleges that petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in his underlying criminal case, Crim. No. 12–00242. (ECF No. 1 p. 3.) The United States argues that petitioner has placed his former counsel’s representation of him at issue by raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and that it is necessary to interview former defense counsel concerning any discussions he may have had with petitioner regarding the matters raised in the Motion to prepare the United States’s response to the pending Motion. (ECF No. 12 pp. 1, 2.) Petitioner has not filed any response to the United States’s request. I find that petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel impliedly waives attorney-client privilege with respect to communications necessary to prove or disprove petitioner’s allegations. See Cvjeticanin v. United States, No. 19-00549, 2021 WL 2261589, at *1 (D.N.J. June 3, 2021) (citing Emmanouil v. Roggio, 499 F. App’x 195, 201 (3d Cir. 2012); Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 863 (3d Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, the Government may interview former counsel for petitioner, Howard Lesnik, Esq., for the purpose of obtaining all reasonably necessary information to prove or disprove petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. I further find that the United States’s interview of defense counsel is necessary to facilitate its response to, as well as this Court’s consideration of, petitioner’s pending Motion. The Court will extend the time for the United States to file its answer. Accordingly, IT IS on this 2nd day of December 2024 ORDERED that: 1. The United States’s request at ECF No. 13 is granted. 2. The United States may interview petitioner’s prior attorney, Howard Lesnik, Esq., prior to filing its answer in this matter. Petitioner’s former attorney remains free to speak or not to speak with the United States as he so chooses. 3. The United States is directed to file its answer to the Motion within 60 days of the entry of this Order. 4. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

/s/ Edward S. Kiel EDWARD S. KIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. And Armour Pharmaceutical Company v. The Home Indemnity Company, a New Hampshire Corporation v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Aiu Insurance Company American Centennial Insurance Company Birmingham Fire Insurance Company First State Insurance Company Granite State Insurance Company Hartford Insurance Company Insco, Limited Insurance Company of Pennsylvania Lexington Insurance Company Manhattan Fire & Marine Insurance Company Motor Vehicle Casualty Company Old Republic Insurance Company Pantry Pride Inc. Promethean Insurance, Ltd. Prudential Reinsurance Company Puritan Insurance Company Revlon Inc. Twin City Insurance Company London Market Co. John Barrington Hume, as Representative of Underwriters at Lloyds Insurance Company of North America National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania All City Insurance Company Employer's Mutual Casualty Gibralter Casualty Company Landmark Insurance Company New England Insurance Company Royal Insurance Company Republic Insurance Company International Insurance Company Pacific Insurance Company, Ltd. Atlanta International Insurance Company Century Indemnity Company Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Transport Insurance Company Midland Insurance Company Integrity Insurance Company Union Indemnity Insurance Transit Casualty Company City Insurance Company Drake Insurance Company Excess Insurance Company Home Insurance Company Pacific Employer's Insurance Company Royal Indemnity Company Zurich International Insurance Company Henrijean Illinois National Insurance Company North Star Reinsurance Company and National Casualty Insurance Company, and the Honorable James McGirr Kelly, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Nominal Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Reed Smith Shaw & McClay Shanley & Fisher, P.C. Hughes Hubbard & Reed Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom and Coopers & Lybrand, Intervenors in Support of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. And Armour Pharmaceutical Company v. The Home Indemnity Company, a New Hampshire Corporation v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Aiu Insurance Company American Centennial Insurance Company Birmingham Fire Insurance Company Transportation Insurance Company First State Insurance Company Granite State Insurance Company Hartford Insurance Company Illinois National Insurance Co. Insco, Ltd. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania Lexington Insurance Company Manhattan Fire & Marine Insurance Company Motor Vehicle Casualty Company National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa New England Reinsurance Company New Hampshire Insurance Company Old Republic Insurance Company Pacific Employers Insurance Company Pantry Pride, Inc. Promethean Insurance, Ltd. Prudential Reinsurance Company Puritan Insurance Company Revlon, Inc. Twin City Insurance Company the London Market Companies and John Barrington Hume, a Representative of Underwriters at Lloyds of London and Revlon, Inc. v. City Insurance Company Drake Insurance Company Excess Insurance Company Henrijean the Home Insurance Company Pacific Employer's Insurance Company Royal Indemnity Company Zurich International Insurance Company Insurance Company of North America National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, Pa All City Insurance Company Employers Mutual Casualty Company Gibralter Casualty Company Landmark Insurance Company New England Insurance Company Royal Insurance Company Republic Insurance Company International Insurance Company Pacific Insurance Company, Ltd. Atlanta International Insurance Co. Century Indemnity Company Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Transportation Insurance Company Midland Insurance Company Pacific Insurance Company, Ltd. Atlanta Insurance Company Ltd. Century Indemnity Company Liberty Mutual Insurance Midland Insurance Company Integrity Insurance Company Union Indemnity Insurance Company Transit Casualty Company Royal Insurance Company Royal Indemnity Company New England Insurance Company Insurance Company of North America North Star Reinsurance Company and National Casualty Insurance Company, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Reed Smith Shaw & McClay Shanley & Fisher, P.C. Hughes Hubbard & Reed Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom and Coopers & Lybrand, Intervenors-Appellants

32 F.3d 851 (First Circuit, 1994)

Anthony Emmanouil v. Vincent Roggio

499 F. App'x 195 (Third Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

EDWARDS v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-united-states-njd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack