11262018 - News Article - Indicted Portage mayor asks judge to reconsider decision to dismiss indictment

Indicted Portage mayor asks judge to reconsider decision to dismiss indictment
NWI Times
November 26, 2018
https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/indicted-portage-mayor-asks-judge-to-reconsider-decision-to-dismiss/article_bb4ed6eb-7724-5bc0-af2b-b1cc80d8ba6b.html

HAMMOND — Attorneys for indicted Portage Mayor James Snyder are again asking for the charges against him to be dismissed, or the prosecution team be disqualified.

In a motion to reconsider filed in U.S. District Court Sunday, Snyder's lead attorney, Jackie M. Bennett Jr. of Indianapolis, writes the court erred on two aspects when it made its original ruling on Sept. 27.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen ruled against Snyder in September over Snyder's claim that emails protected by the attorney-client privilege were viewed by prosecutors and harmed his chance to get a fair trial.

Van Bokkelen also ruled against Snyder's claim that the process to review such privileged emails was faulty.

Snyder contended in May that emails protected by attorney-client privilege got through a three-tiered taint team, and were viewed by prosecutors. A taint team is a review process created to ensure that privileged emails are not seen by prosecutors.

That claim led to several hearings, held mostly behind closed doors, where emails were reviewed and the review process was scrutinized.

Snyder was indicted in November 2016 on three counts, including bribery and tax evasion. His trial is set for Jan. 14.

In the latest motion, Bennett writes the September order was wrong in regard to the definition of work product and on a Sixth Amendment attachment issue. Citing several legal cases, Bennett writes there is no precedent to back the court's ruling. Bennett maintains the contention that emails viewed by the prosecution team should be considered protected at attorney-client privilege.

"The court’s order — adopted from the government’s erroneously narrow view — is contrary to Supreme Court precedent, 7th Circuit precedent, the rules of civil procedure, the rules of criminal procedure and every other authority bearing on the topic," Bennett wrote.

"Mr. Snyder’s argument is simple. When the government seizes the work product of a criminal defense attorney and his client pre-indictment, it makes it difficult if not impossible for that criminal defense attorney to provide effective assistance post-indictment," Bennett stated regarding the Sixth Amendment issue.

"The validity of the order depends on erasing what the work product doctrine has meant since its inception, and requires the court to be the first in the nation to find no Sixth Amendment implications in a pre-indictment attack on an attorney-client relationship with a defense attorney," wrote Bennett, renewing the call to dismiss the indictment or disqualify the trial team.

Bennett also suggests the issue be discussed during a hearing Dec. 5.