The court sided with the business counsel and concluded that there was no agreement and refused relief – Weissman`s incriminating statements were not privileged and could be used against him in court. In the Tribunal`s view, the disclosure of the corridors did not serve the interests that justified the privilege. For example, communications were made outside the presence of a lawyer (although, as the court found, the lawyers were nearby) and were not made for the purpose of providing legal advice. The court simply characterized these communications as “a discussion of having a JDA member pass on his independent and non-legal research to another JDA member, while finding that he had sent the same research to his lawyer.” [9] In addition, the court stated that “the mere fact that the communications took place among the co-accused who had joined a common defence agreement was not sufficient to protect the statements from disclosure.” When a party to a common defense agreement decides to cooperate with the government, the potential for disclosure of confidential information also threatens other sixth amendment rights. (Quotes are omitted). Federal courts have an independent interest in streamlining criminal proceedings within the ethical standards of the profession and for judicial proceedings to appear fair to all who observe them. Courts also have an independent interest in protecting a fair trial from trial tactics that can be used to create appeal issues. Given the high potential for absurdity, courts have every right to seek common defence agreements before making problems. [7] Weissman invoked the common privilege of the defence to ensure that his own confessions were not used against him. To prove his right to privilege, Weissman`s lawyer stated that at the beginning of the meeting he had asked the business advisor to agree to the meeting being held in accordance with a JDA. According to Weissman`s lawyer, the lawyer agreed. However, the business advisor had another recollection of the meeting and explained that there was never any mention of jDA. The accused learned that the difficult path in the United States v.

Krug. [8] In Krug, a written JDA was concluded by co-accused and their lawyers. After the agreement was implemented, the co-accused had a discussion on issues related to their case. The court found that the corridor discussions were not protected by the JDA and could be used as evidence against it during the trial. Second, a lawyer can ask the accused to sign waivers, whereas a lawyer can get the conflict dropped in certain criminal cases – this is very rare. First, employee interviews by company advisers, without explicit confirmation of a common defence privilege, are not subject to the privilege of common defence and may be transmitted by the company to the government throughout the cooperation.