Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Eid Hammad, A/K/A Eddie Hammad, and Taiseer Hammad Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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.
United States v. Eid Hammad, A/K/A Eddie Hammad, and Taiseer Hammad Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
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
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
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