{
  "id": "RL31221",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31221",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 102089,
      "date": "2001-12-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:18:08.814941",
      "title": "McDade-Murtha Amendment: Legislation in the 107th Congress Concerning Ethical Standards for Justice Department Litigators",
      "summary": "The McDade-Murtha Amendment, 28 U.S.C.  530B, requires Justice Department litigators to\nobserve\nthe ethical standards established by the state and local federal court rules wherever they perform their\nduties. The Amendment was passed in an apparent effort to find an effective preventive and\ncorrective mechanism for prosecutorial abuse. Critics argue that the Amendment can work to\nimpede effective federal law enforcement efforts. They point particularly to state and local federal\ncourt provisions governing no contact rules, grand jury practices, and professional honesty. \n  Several amendments to McDade-Murtha have been offered during the 107th Congress. Each\nhas a provision designed to allow federal litigators to initiate, direct, and advise undercover\ninvestigations notwithstanding ethical prohibitions against false statements and deceitful conduct. \nThe proposals are in response to an Oregon Supreme Court decision that refused to recognize a law\nenforcement exception to its state professional honesty requirements. All but one of the proposals\nsimply add the undercover exception to McDade-Murtha.\n   S. 1437 , however, repeals McDade-Murtha and returns federal litigators to their\npre-existing ethical situtation with several adjustments,  i.e. :\n  \u00bf an explicit law enforcement undercover exception to any otherwise applicable honesty rule;\n  \u00bf a specific prohibition against the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence based solely\nupon a prosecutor's ethical violations;\n  \u00bf a study designed to resolve conflicts over the no contact rule (a proscription against attorneys\ndealing with the clients of another unbeknownst to their attorneys); and\n  \u00bf a study designed to resolve other conflicts between federal law enforcement interests and state\nstandards of professional responsibility.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31221",
          "sha1": "bbe139bd30cd0d2c28224cb76d3ca80b71343eda",
          "filename": "files/20011218_RL31221_bbe139bd30cd0d2c28224cb76d3ca80b71343eda.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20011218_RL31221_bbe139bd30cd0d2c28224cb76d3ca80b71343eda.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}