Free Reply/Response Misc - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

gS;g5;2g@§asg; §—;()O-ceQQ£;1l7§@BB Document 9384y1t3 Lgnlznbd 08/05/2005 Page 1 of FSAGE a2.-ted
ATTACHMENT L A
. STATE OF CONNECTICUT
sz Stamford, Connecticut
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD
AFFIDAVIT
I, Joseph Hutchison, being duly sworn do depose and state:
l. I was employed as an Assistant United States Attomey for the District of Connecticut
from 1988 through 2000.
2. In the Fall of 1999, 1 was assigned to conduct an independent investigation into .
whether any govemment employee was responsible for or involved in leaking sensitive
information that appeared in articles published by the Hartford Courant on October 3 and
October 5, 1999, Although I was 110t ultimately able to determine who had provided the
information in question to the Courant, I was able to determine that the probable source of the
information was a privileged coniidential document prepared by attomeys for Paul Silvester.
3. As part of my inquiry, I reviewed government files and records, and interviewed those
involved in the investigation. I determined that these records and individuals were not the
probable source of the information in question.
4. I interviewed Hubert Santos and Hope Seeley, attorneys for Silvester. I focused in
speaking with Ms. Seeley on comparing the content of the articles with the materials Mr. Santos
and Ms. Seeley had developed in preparation for their interactions with the government. In
conducting this review, I did not look at or obtain copies of the privileged materials in the
possession of Silvester’s counsel. I reviewed with Ms. Seeley the infomation presented in thc
articles and asked her about the degree to which that information was similar to the information
l

QB/@5/2@@5Caf;£ 53éOO-05303012] ?é§_§B Document 93§mt]3LAw 08/05/2005 Page 2 ofpggg Bgym
presented in her privileged documents. Based on this review, Ms. Seeley and I concluded that
the information in the articles closely resembled the content, language and organization of the
infomation presented in the attomey notes prepared in anticipation of a proffer session with the
government. a
5. During this inquiry, I was sensitive to the need to avoid compromising the privileged
status of these attorney notes. I was particularly aware ofthe ways in which even an inspection
of limited scope, for a very limited purpose, could nonetheless be used to argue that a broad
waiver had occurred, thereby vitiating the privileged status of materials and attorney-client
discussions well beyond the scope of the initial disclosure. My sensitivity to this particular legal
issue was heightened at this time by discussions with defense attorneys in an unrelated casein
which my request for limited access to certain privileged materials had raised this very concern.
6. I had a general understanding of the scope and nature of the many branches of the
Silvestenrelated corruption investigation. During this inquiry, however, I focused specifically on
the limited subject matter of the articles. Idid not become aware of any infomation of
investigative value, exculpatory or incriminating, that was not already in the possession ofthe
government team.
7. Because no information relating to Triumph Capital or Charles Spadoni was contained
in the Courant articles, I had no reason to inquire into these subject matters during my
independent investigation. I do not recall discussing such subject matters with members ofthe
federal prosecutorial and investigative team, or with Silvester or his counsel.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct-
2

gg;g5,»ggg§a5g;Ig:g¢;)O-cr;@Q24;I;7p@BB Document 938MmG L,¤wFHgdrO8/05/2005 Page 3 of Baer; @¤1!·‘@¢1
Executed pn August? 2005.
A %S§PH HUTCI-HSON g
3