United States v. Linda Jean Freeman, AKA Laurie Diecidue

Linda Jean Freeman appeals from the judgment convicting her of “bail jumping” ( 18 U.S.C. § 3150 ) following a court trial. That charge was based upon her failure to appear in the district court on May 20, 1974 — the time fixed for sentencing her on a narcotics conviction.

Freeman was represented by the same attorney in both the narcotics and bail jumping proceedings; her assignments all center on the government’s calling of her attorney at the latter trial to give evidence on the issue of notice, i. e., whether Freeman knew she had been ordered to appear for sentencing on the 20th of May.

The district court did not err in requiring counsel to testify. The evidence sought to be elicited from him was not of a confidential nature and hence was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. It simply related to whether he had advised his client of the court’s order to appear. We think the Second Circuit aptly appraised the matter when it said:

United States v. Hall, 346 F.2d 875, 882 (2d Cir. 1965); see also United States v. Woodruff, 383 F.Supp. 696, 698 (E.D.Pa. 1974).

Nor are we persuaded of error by appellant’s due process and effective assistance of counsel…