"Tell me about the different approaches between circuits in regard to taint review by the DOJ"
3.6s
Add to Favorites
Cozy Upvote
Share
Export
Tap a circle to see that AI's answer
The federal appellate split centers on how independent a DOJ “taint” or filter team must be—Eleventh Circuit upholds DOJ‑appointed teams, Sixth Circuit rejects non‑independent teams, and the Fifth Circuit remains skeptical, while the Fourth Circuit’s stance is contested.
Quick Facts
- Independence of the filter team is the core requirement across circuits.
- Eleventh Circuit: upholds DOJ‑appointed teams if functionally independent.
- Sixth Circuit: rejects teams that are not truly insulated from prosecutors.
- Fifth Circuit: expresses strong skepticism and calls for stricter safeguards.
AI Consensus
Models Agreed
- Eleventh Circuit upholds DOJ‑appointed filter teams when functional independence is shown.
- Sixth Circuit rejects non‑independent filter teams as a privilege violation.
- All circuits stress independence as the core safeguard for privileged material.
Points of Debate
- Fourth Circuit’s stance varies: some analyses say it permits teams with strict screening, while others claim it found the practice infringed privilege.
DOJ “Taint” (Filter) Teams: How Federal Circuits Differ
What Is a “Taint” or Filter Team?
A taint team (also called a filter team) is a group of DOJ attorneys and agents tasked with reviewing seized materials to separate privileged communications from admissible evidence. The team must be independent of the line prosecutors to avoid violating attorney‑client privilege. 26
Circuit‑by‑Circuit Landscape
| Circuit | Holding on DOJ Taint/Filter Teams | Independence Standard | Key Cases / Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Circuit | Upholds the DOJ’s use of a filter team when it is functionally independent and does not share privileged material with prosecutors. | Functional independence is sufficient; no court‑appointed team required. | Reuters decision (Korf) 7 |
| Sixth Circuit | Rejects the use of a non‑independent filter team; finds it violates attorney‑client privilege. | Requires a team outside the prosecutorial chain of command; otherwise privilege is breached. | Jenner analysis of 2006 Sixth decision 8 |
| Fifth Circuit | Skeptical – raises serious concerns about the DOJ’s ability to ensure true independence; no definitive rule but signals that internal teams may be inadequate. | Calls for formal external oversight or stronger safeguards. | “Foxes or Hedgehogs” commentary 5 |
| Fourth Circuit | Contested – some authorities say the Fourth permits taint teams with strict screening, while others report the Fourth held such use infringed privilege. | The court emphasizes strict functional independence and robust screening, but opinions differ on whether the standard was met. | “In‑the‑Eye‑of‑the‑Beholder” analysis 1; other commentary suggests infringement 3 |
| Ninth & Tenth Circuits | Generally supportive of DOJ‑appointed teams, often adopting the Fourth’s functional‑independence test, but lack landmark rulings. | Emphasize efficiency and the absence of clear privilege violation. | Aggregated analysis 9 |
| Other Circuits | No major published opinions; many follow the Fourth/Elevens model. | — | — |
Common Themes Across Circuits
- Independence Is Paramount – All circuits that have spoken require the taint team to be separate from the prosecutorial team. 178
- Functional vs. Formal Independence – The Eleventh and Fourth accept functional independence (insulated duties), while the Fifth and Sixth lean toward formal external oversight. 58
- Privilege Protection – Failure to adequately screen privileged material can lead to suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges. 26
- Circuit Split – The clearest split is Eleventh (uphold) vs. Sixth (reject), with the Fifth adding a layer of skepticism and the Fourth’s position still debated.
Practical Takeaways for Litigants
- In the Eleventh, Fourth, or Tenth Circuits: Expect the court to accept a DOJ‑appointed filter team if the DOJ can demonstrate functional independence and a solid screening protocol.
- In the Fifth and Sixth Circuits: Be prepared to challenge the adequacy of the team’s independence and possibly demand a court‑appointed review.
- Defendants should scrutinize the DOJ’s proposed safeguards and be ready to argue that the team does not meet the higher independence threshold demanded by more stringent circuits.
Why This Matters
The way appellate courts interpret “independence” directly impacts defendant rights, evidence admissibility, and the efficiency of federal prosecutions. As the DOJ continues to rely on taint teams, the evolving split may eventually prompt the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement.
AI can make mistakes. Verify important information.