Ethics Issues from U.S. v. Sussmann: Right and Wrong Reasons to Indict and What Is Truth?

The recent trial of Michael Sussmann for lying to the FBI about his motives for giving it information that purported to show a link between a Russian bank and Trump interests raises two questions in the world of legal ethics and federal criminal law. The first asks when if ever considerations other than to convict can be a valid basis to indict. The second explores the meaning of truth and falsity in the professional conduct rules and in the statute used to prosecute Sussmann.

Stephen Gillers is the Elihu Root Professor of Law and Barbara Gillers is an Adjunct Professor of Law, both at New York University School of Law.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or Stitcher.

Reference List for Podcast #16: Ethics Issues from U.S. v. Sussmann: Right and Wrong Reasons to Indict and What Is Truth?

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

18 U.S.C. § 1001

Fire Insurance Exchange v. Bell, 643 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. 1994)

Greycas v. Proud, 826 F.2d 1560 (7th Cir. 1987)

Vega v. Jones Day, Reavis & Pogue, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 26 (Ct. App. 2004)

Dana Milbank, Bill Barr’s Reign of Innuendo — Unmasked, Washington Post, June 3, 2022

Charlie Savage, Sussmann Acquittal Raises Question: What Is Durham Actually Trying to Do?, New York Times, June 1, 2022

Kimberley A. Strassel, John Durham Goes to Court, Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2022