IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50280
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUCILLE CHRISTIE BLAKLEY;
DAVID PORRAS,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-98-CR-92-3
--------------------
February 23, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Porras argues that the district court clearly erred in
allowing his bankruptcy attorney to testify at trial because it
violated the attorney-client privilege. Lucille Christie Blakley
adopts this argument.
The district court did not clearly err in allowing the
attorney to testify because the Government made a prima facie
showing that Porras and his codefendants sought counsel’s legal
representation in order to further their illegal and fraudulent
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-50280
-2-
conduct. Thus, the defendants’ attorney-client privilege was lost
under the crime or fraud exception to that rule. See United States
v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, (5th Cir. 1986).
Blakley argues that the district court abused its discretion
in denying her motion to take the deposition of her fugitive
codefendant William Edmiston pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a),
which provides that the district court may order the taking of a
deposition in a criminal case if it finds that exceptional
circumstances exist.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Blakley’s motion for the deposition. The district court concluded
based on its prior experience with Edmiston in civil proceedings
that Edmiston would not be a credible witness and also determined
that the deposition would expose the prosecutors to an unnecessary
risk of harm and would cause the Government to incur substantial
expense. Further, the record reflects that Blakley’s prior
testimony in civil proceedings, which was reviewed at the criminal
trial, showed her knowledge of the fraudulent activity, and clearly
outweighed any probative value that would have been given to the
testimony of the fugitive codefendant. Blakley failed to show the
existence of exceptional circumstances warranting the deposition.
See United States v. Aggarwal, 17 F.3d 737, 741 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.