United States v. Koerber (966 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 2013)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS

CLARK WADDOUPS, District Judge.

Defendant filed his Motion to Suppress (Dkt. No. 258) on April 13, 2012. The court heard three days of evidence on the Motion to Suppress on November 8, 14, and 28, 2012, and oral argument on April 18, 2013. The parties filed lengthy post-hearing briefs on the Motion to Suppress, including supplemental memoranda relating to a specific legal issue raised during oral argument. In response to material in the Government’s Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Authorities and Briefing (Dkt. No. 338), Defendant moved to reopen the evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Suppress to question certain witnesses about information and guidance that the Government had obtained from Department of Justice (“DOJ”) ethics advisors or the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s internal professional responsibility liaison — material as to which Defendant argued the Government had now waived privilege, as asserted at the earlier evidentiary hearings. (See Def-’s Mot. Reopen Ev. Hrg. [Dkt. No. 340].) After Defendant’s Motion to Reopen was fully briefed, the court granted the motion on May 31, 2013. (Dkt. No. 345.) The Government moved to reconsider. (Dkt. No. 349.) With the Motion for Reconsideration fully briefed, the court now disposes of that Motion together with the Motion to Suppress, denying the Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 349) but nevertheless vacating as moot its Order (Dkt. No. 345) and granting the Motion to Suppress (Dkt. No 258). The court also therefore vacates as moot Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 346) and terminates the Government’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 292) as moot.

I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The court granted Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. No. 340) on May 31, 2013 (the “Order”). (Dkt. No. 345.) On June 21, 2013, after Defendant filed a Motion to Compel the information the court required the Government to produce in the Order (Dkt. No. 346), the Government filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order Reopening Evidentiary Hearing and Production of Discovery on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. (Dkt. No. 349.) The court has carefully reviewed the briefing relating to the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration and has concluded that it is without merit, though it also vacates its May 31, 2013 Order as moot, in the interest of judicial economy, because it is ready to rule on the Motion to Suppress (Dkt. No. 258) based on the extensive briefing, transcripts, and oral arguments.

A. Background

In his Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. No. 340), Defendant provided substantive argumentation of law and fact on the issue of whether the Government had waived privilege under the “sword and shield” doctrine. Previously, during the evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Dkt. No. 258), the Government had objected to Defendant’s questions surrounding the context of an email used to refresh the recollection of Jennifer Korb, a Government witness who is a former Special Assistant United States Attorney, based on the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and deliberative process privilege. Although the court initially overruled the objection, the Government only produced one page containing the undated email that Ms. Korb had written in December 2008 to the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s internal liaison for ethics and professional responsibility queries, Ms. Elizabethann Stevens, arguing that this page alone had refreshed Ms. Korb’s recollection. The email related to the “Rule 4.2 issue” prosecutors had apparently identified in their preparation to instruct investigators to contact Defendant directly about the subject matter of their investigation. Later in the evidentiary hearing, Defendant was again denied the opportunity to inquire into the substance of any response or opinion received from the DOJ ethics advisors or professional responsibility experts based on the Government’s assertion of privilege.

In supplemental briefing surrounding a separate legal issue raised during oral argument on the Motion to Suppress— whether and to what extent courts have allowed investigators (or prosecutors through investigators as their de facto alter egos) to contact represented targets of their investigations for direct questioning in seemingly innocuous interviews (as opposed to covert or undercover contact through informants) — the Government argued that even if Rule 4.2 applied, it had not violated the Rule, and it had actually done more than required to protect Defendant’s liberty interests by taking “steps not required by the Constitution, federal statutes or the rules of ethics.” (PL’s Resp. to Def.’s Suppl. Auth. and Brief. 9 [Dkt. No. 338].) In fact, argued the Government, “the prosecutors consulted with ethics advisors before the agent [FBI Agent Saxey] arranged the interviews.” (Id.) Moreover, argued the Government, “[d]espite Defendant’s unsupported assertion to the contrary, the only record support establishes that Agent Saxey did not take steps to arrange the interviews until prosecutors received this information and guidance from DOJ ethics advisors.” (Id. at 9 n. 3.) In his Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing, Defendant then analyzed these statements as an assertion by the Government that it had relied on the advice of counsel — on the referenced “information and guidance from DOJ ethics ad-visors” — in its decision to proceed with the ex parte contact and questioning of Defendant as the target of its investigation whom it intended to prosecute despite its awareness that he was represented by counsel. (See, e.g., Def.’s Mot. Reopen Ev. Hrg. 9-11 [Dkt. No. 340].) In other words, Defendant argued that the Government was now using the DOJ guidance as an argumentative sword despite having previously invoked privilege surrounding this advice as an evidentiary shield to prevent Defendant from eliciting testimony about any response to Ms. Korb’s December 2008 email to Ms. Stevens with the subject line “Rule 4.2 issue.” (Id.)

In its Opposition, the Government filed a brief containing one sentence addressing the Motion: “Defendant made an erroneous assertion at oral argument (Tr. 4/18/13 at 22-24) and the government responded to that statement — nothing more.” (Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. Reopen Suppr. Hrg. 1 [Dkt. No. 342].) The pinpoint citation to the hearing transcript, however, was not on point and related to discussion between the court and Defendant’s counsel about the significance of Defendant’s keys having been taken from him as a result of being attached to his cell phone with a carabiner. In its Motion for Reconsideration, the Government twice acknowledged that its “initial response to defendant’s motion to reopen was purposefully brief.” (PL’s Mot. Reconsider 1-2 & n. 3 [Dkt. No. 349].)

B. Analysis

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not technically authorize a motion for reconsideration, but the Supreme Court has recognized a place for motions for reconsideration in criminal proceedings and has “noted the “wisdom of giving district courts the opportunity promptly to correct their own alleged errors.’ ” United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1241-1242 (10th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 8, 97 S.Ct. 18, 50 L.Ed.2d 8 (1976)). Relief under this de facto procedure is discretionary, id. at 1243 n. 6, by analogy to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. United States v. Barajas-Chavez, 358 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.2004) (noting that appellate review of a court’s disposition of a motion for reconsideration under criminal procedure is for an “abuse of discretion” by analogy to the prevailing standard under the rules of civil procedure.) Although motions for reconsideration are also not specifically provided for under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts entertain them under Rule 54(b), if they are interlocutory, or under Rule 60(b), if they are final. See Raytheon Constructors v. Asarco Inc., 368 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir.2003). In considering the merits of a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case, analogizing to analysis of such motions in civil cases also provides guidance.

The Tenth Circuit has affirmed that “revisiting” issues in a motion for reconsideration that have already been addressed in the initial briefing “is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider”; more importantly, “advancing new arguments or supporting facts which were otherwise available for presentation when the original ... motion was briefed” is “inappropriate.” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1242 & 1244 (10th Cir.1991) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Van Skiver Court, in fact, did not address the merits of the motion to reconsider because the moving party had failed to demonstrate any basis for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. “Relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary and is warranted only in exceptional circumstances” such as those listed in Rule 60(b). Id. (quoting Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir.1990)).

Defendant is correct in identifying the Government’s admission that its initial one paragraph response was “purposefully brief’ as fatal to its Motion for Reconsideration. (See Def.’s Opp. Mot. Reconsider 4 [Dkt. No. 358].) “Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.2000). No such grounds are present here. “Motions to reconsider are not to be used as a second chance when a party has failed to present its strongest case in the first instance.” Sec. Serv. Fed. Credit Union v. First Am. Mortgage Funding, LLC, 906 F.Supp.2d 1108, 1111 (D.Colo.2012). All of the legal arguments and facts presented by the Government in its Motion for Reconsideration were available to it at the time it chose to file its one paragraph Response to Defendant’s Motion to Reopen the Evidentiary Hearing. The Government should have made those arguments at that time but chose to file one substantive sentence in response instead. A Motion for Reconsideration cannot be used to correct this strategic error. See Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.

Moreover, the court is compelled to address the Governments’ repeated assertion that its Order manifested “clear error” in its interpretation of the Government’s statements about relying on “information and guidance from DOJ ethics advisors” and in its review of the record. The Government’s statements in its Supplemental Brief (Dkt. No. 338) and the context in which they were made speak for themselves. The court agrees that Defendant’s description accurately describes the context and meaning of those statements. (See Def.’s Opp. Mot. Reconsider 2 [Dkt. No. 358] (“The government purposefully made those assertions in the context of trying to persuade the Court that its actions were ‘authorized by law and explicitly as a defense to the ‘outrageous[ness]’ of its misconduct under Fifth Amendment due process considerations.”).)

In its Response to Defendant’s Motion to Reopen the Evidentiary Hearing, the Government cited to pages 22 to 24 of the April 18, 2013 hearing transcript in support of its one sentence argument there that it had only made the contested statements in its Supplemental Brief to correct Defendant’s misrepresentation of the record. But this pinpoint citation was wholly inapplicable to the question at hand. Then, in its Motion for Reconsideration, the Government redirected its accusation that Defendant had misrepresented the record to page 29 of the April 18, 2013 hearing transcript. The sentence that the Government claims constitutes Defendant’s misrepresentation of the record is Defendant’s argument there that “[t]he government in this case didn’t even wait for their own Office of Professional Conduct to give them an answer, didn’t seek court approval, didn’t seek a -written waiver.” (Tr. Hrg. 4/18/13, at 29:22-25 [Dkt. No. 324].) The Government indisputably did not seek court approval or a written waiver from Defendant’s various attorneys to make ex parte contact with him. And as to Defendant’s counsel’s assertion that the Government “didn’t even wait for their own Office of Professional Conduct to give them an answer” in response to Ms. Korb’s email with the subject line “Rule 4.2 issue,” the court finds that this was not a misrepresentation of the record but rather a reasonable inference drawn by Defendant’s counsel based on the deficient evidentiary record resulting from the Govern-, ment’s repeated assertion of privilege, which the court upheld, each time Defendant’s counsel tried to inquire about the response, if any, to Ms. Korb’s email. The court rejects the Government’s arguments that, hoodwinked by Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations of the record and analysis, the court ruled in his favor on his Motion to Reopen the Evidentiary Hearing. As noted, the context of the Government’s contested statements speaks for itself (see PL’s Resp. to Def.’s Suppl. Auth. and Brief. 9 & n. 3 [Dkt. No. 338]), as does the voluminous record, and the court’s interpretation of both in granting the Motion to Reopen was not “clear error.”

Though the court therefore DENIES the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration, it nevertheless also VACATES as moot, in the interest of judicial economy, its May 31, 2013 Order (Dkt. No. 345) compelling the reopening of the evidentiary hearing and the production of the materials as to which the Government waived its asserted privilege. The court has carefully reviewed the extensive briefs, transcripts, and oral arguments relating to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and is ready to grant that motion on the basis of this extensive documentation, without needing to expend the court’s valuable time and resources in such a reopened hearing.

II. MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The court must consider what consequences, if any, follow a lead prosecutor’s instructions to federal investigators to initiate pre-indictment ex parte contact with the target of their investigation who prosecutors know is represented by counsel, and to conduct multiple interviews of that person, including through use of questions scripted by the prosecutors and designed to influence the target to waive attorney-client privilege and disclose information about potential trial strategy such as reliance on an “advice of counsel” defense. In doing so, the court must evaluate a relatively unique factual scenario and address abundant but in many cases inapposite case law.

A. Outcome Summary

As discussed in more detail below, the court finds, as a preliminary matter, that the Government knew that Defendant was represented by counsel at the time it conducted two ex parte interviews with him in February 2009. Although the court believes that under the unique factual circumstances present in this case, the posture of the Government toward Defendant had shifted from investigatory to prosecutorial by February 2009 (even though Defendant had not yet been technically indicted by that time), the court need not analyze in detail whether Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had therefore “attached” for suppression purposes because it finds that Defendant voluntarily waived that right in the noncustodial, pre-indictment interviews under recent, controlling Supreme Court precedent. But. based on the prosecutors’ actual knowledge that Defendant was represented, they violated Rule 4.2 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct in authorizing the agents to contact him directly and conduct the interviews with him without obtaining consent from his counsel or court approval. An amendment to Utah’s Rule 4.2 in 2005 has unpegged the consideration of the Rule’s application from principles governing the Sixth Amendment right to counsel analysis, resulting in a broadening of the Rule’s applicability as to overt, pre-indictment, noncustodial ex parte contact. As a violation of the no-contact rule, the ex parte contact at issue here also constituted a violation of a federal statute — the Citizens Protection Act (the “Protection Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 530B — enacted in 1999 to ensure that U.S. Attorneys and those in their offices, and any other attorney for the Government, conform to the local ethics rules applicable in their jurisdictions of practice. Thus, as a departure also from publicly known internal policies of the DOJ, FBI, and IRS meant to protect citizens’ rights, the statutory ethics violation amounts to a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment for which exclusion is the appropriate remedy under the unique facts of this case.

B. Factual Background

Defendant voluntarily appeared for two interviews with IRS Agent Ronald Marker and FBI Agent Cameron Saxey on February 13, 2009 and February 26, 2009. The interviews related to Defendant’s alleged role in a “white collar crime case involving wire fraud, securities fraud, and some tax violations.” (Email from J. Korb to E. Stevens, admitted as Gov. Ex. 6 at 11/8/12 Ev. Hrg.) The allegations against Defendant were the focus of a joint investigation and prosecution among the DOJ, the Utah Division of Securities, the FBI, and the IRS that had been in motion in one form or another since 2005, with the U.S. Attorney’s Office taking over in approximately February of 2008. Assistant U.S. Attorney Stewart Walz and his colleagues in the prosecutors’ office authorized the interviews, which were recorded. In the second interview, the agents posed half a dozen scripted questions provided by the prosecutors, including questions designed to induce Defendant, who was the target of their investigation and whom prosecutors intended to indict, to waive attorney-client privilege and to reveal potential trial strategy such as whether he intended to rely on an “advice of counsel” defense at trial, though he was as yet unindicted. Defendant’s statements during these two interviews were integral to the indictment returned against him on May 26, 2009.

Development of the Investigation

Defendant has been a target of this investigation since 2005. At that time, Ms. Jennifer Korb, then an attorney with the Utah Division of Securities (the “Division”), was participating in the investigation on behalf of the Division. At some point during this Division investigation, she also became “cross-designated” as a Special Assistant United States Attorney (“SAUSA”) to assist the U.S. Attorney’s Office in prosecuting cases. According to Agent Marker, the IRS investigation of Defendant began in 2006. In late 2007, Ms. Korb began coordinating with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the IRS, through Agent Ronald Marker, on the investigation. By early 2008, the Utah Attorney General ultimately decided not to file the case against Defendant. The U.S. Attorney’s Office then took charge of the investigation in approximately February 2008, and AUSA Walz was assigned to be lead counsel with assistance, initially, from AUSA Trey Mansfield. Ms. Korb continued in her cross-designated role on the team of prosecutors involved in the investigation. FBI Agent Cameron Saxey was assigned to work on the case in early 2008. IRS Agent Marker testified that he “joined the grand jury investigation in early 2008” in order to continue pursuing the tax evasion angle of the “securities fraud and possibly money laundering” investigation that he had led since 2006. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/14/12, pt. 1, at 13:17-18; 22:1-2, 8-10 [Dkt. No. 304].) Ms. Korb, FBI Agent Saxey, and IRS Agent Marker have all testified that the current charges against Defendant stem from the initial state investigation as carried over to the federal investigation in February 2008.

Representation in Early Stages of the Investigation .

IRS Agent Ronald Marker opened the IRS investigation against Defendant in 2006 and first met him when he visited Defendant’s Provo offices with four to six other IRS agents to interview him in March 2007. At that time, attorney Russell Skousen was asked to leave the room while Defendant was read the obligatory Miranda-like “noncustodial statement of rights” required by internal IRS policies to be given when questioning a target of an IRS investigation, which included the statement “I advise you further that you may, if you wish, seek the assistance of any attorney before responding.” Defendant invoked his right to have counsel present and asked Mr. Skousen back into the room as his counsel, telling Agent Marker that they preferred to wait until another attorney, Jeffery Thompson, arrived, though Defendant and Mr. Skousen were willing to answer some preliminary questions in the meantime. Based on this interaction, Agent Marker testified that he believed that Defendant “was represented by Skousen and Thompson.” (Id. at 11:19-20.) FBI Agent Saxey testified that once he was assigned to the team in early 2008, he became aware of what had transpired in March 2007 between Agent Marker and Defendant’s counsel. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 53:11-14 [Dkt. No. 301].) In fact, by February 15, 2008, Agent Saxey had been made aware of Mr. Skousen’s representation of Defendant. (Id. at 66:21-67:21.)

Agent Marker also remembered discussing a further attorney, Robert Smith, who was “a tax attorney who was privy to Mr. Koerber’s tax situation” and, in fact, he contacted Mr. Smith in August 2007. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/14/12 pt. 1, at 15:9-10; 16: 7, 19-24 [Dkt. No. 304].) Defendant’s attorney Mr. Smith, however, refused to speak with Agent Marker at that time because “Mr. Wheeler advised him not to speak with [Agent Marker].” (Id. at 17:12-13.) Agent Marker understood that this referred to Max Wheeler, a local criminal defense attorney, who he came to understand was representing Defendant “somewhere around this time” in August 2007. (Id. at 18:8-9.) Agent Marker also became aware “somewhere along the line” that Defendant “had sought some representation from Randall MacKay” pertaining to issues of securities law during the course of the investigation. (Id. at 19:4-6.) Between March 2007 and February 2009, Agent Marker “spoke to Mr. Wheeler and perhaps one of his associates a couple times” and to “Mr. Skousen on occasion.” (Id. at 19:15-17.) Agent Marker is of the opinion that his investigation beginning in 2006 and continuing on into the grand jury investigation after the U.S. Attorney’s Office had taken charge of the matter in February 2008 “eventually led to some of the charges that Mr. Koerber faces” under the current Indictment and that, in fact, even the March 2007 meeting at Defendant’s offices “played a role in the ultimate indictment.” (Id. at 7:11-14; 13:11-13.)

Representation After U.S. Attorney’s Office Took Over Investigation

In March 2008, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office began laying the groundwork for the indictment they intended to seek against Defendant by issuing a grand jury subpoena shortly after having taken over the matter from Utah’s Attorney General’s Office, calling Defendant to testify as the putative document custodian for his now defunct businesses. Defendant’s counsel Max Wheeler responded to the subpoena on March 21, 2008 on his law firm’s letterhead in correspondence addressed to Brett Tolman, the U.S. Attorney at the time, and copied to AUSA Walz. In the letter, Mr. Wheeler first referred to correspondence dated March 12, 2008 between himself and AUSA Walz on issues relating to his representation of Defendant in this matter. He then stated that

It is our understanding that Mr. Koerber is the subject/target of the grand jury’s investigation. While the government seeks Mr. Koerber’s appearance before the grand jury as a “custodian of records,” his appearance would in reality be in his personal capacity. As you know, calling a subject/target before a grand jury rarely, if ever, occurs because of the prejudice that is certain to result, particularly when, as will be the case here, the witness invokes his Fifth Amendment rights and refuses to answer any questions....

In my thirty-nine years of practice, I have never seen the government compel a subject/target to testify before the grand jury in any capacity when it was informed beforehand that the witness intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. In my opinion, if the government insists on subpoenaing Mr. Koerber before the grand jury, it would constitute grand jury abuse,' especially when other methods for obtaining the records are available, and in this case, where numerous documents have already been produced by company counsel to the State Division of Securities, the agency cooperating with your office in this investigation. Furthermore, the IRS has been given virtually all of the company records pursuant to a summons it issued several months ago.... If the government still seeks Mr. Koerber’s appearance before the grand jury, I would request, as indicated in your letter, that you issue a new subpoena to Mr. Koerber personally. While I do not agree with such an approach, I am willing to accept the new subpoena on his behalf.

(March 21, 2008 Letter from M. Wheeler to U.S. Attorney Tolman, admitted as Def. Ex. H at 11/8/12 Ev. Hrg.)

AUSA Walz knew Mr. Wheeler was representing Defendant even before the March 2008 correspondence. He testified that “[a]t the time I got the case, my understanding was that [Defendant] was represented by Max Wheeler of Snow Christensen & Martineau,” that Mr. Wheeler “had represented Mr. Koerber in responding to an IRS summons for records,” and that “he was representing Mr. Koerber for a period of time.” (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 191:14-19 [Dkt. No. 301].) In fact, based on this knowledge, AUSA Walz contacted Mr. Wheeler “sometime in 2008” to ask Mr. Wheeler to advise his client not to contact the agents on the matter after Defendant had attempted to call Agent Marker. (Id. at- 192:1-9.) Agent Marker remembers this having happened in “late 2008,” though he could not be certain. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/14/12, pt. 1, at 34:4-5 [Dkt. No. 304].) In approximately the Fall of 2008, “or maybe a little later,” AUSA Walz denied a request by Agent Saxey for permission to interview Defendant with Agent Marker because he wanted to contact Defendant’s counsel first. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 50:11-17 [Dkt. No. 301].) AUSA Walz therefore instructed Agent Saxey not to proceed until he reverted with more information. (Id. at 78:5-9.) Agent Saxey recalls AUSA Walz telling Ms. Korb “to do some things and then contact someone back in Washington” and then instructing the agents that the prosecutors would let them know if and when the agents could contact Defendant for such an interview. (Id. at 50:21-24.)

Recognition of “Rule 4.2 Issue” as a Result of Defendant’s Representation

Ms. Korb also testified about a meeting among this group on the joint prosecution/investigative team (AUSA Walz, SAU-SA Korb, and Agents Saxey and Marker) in early December 2008 in which AUSA Walz said he wanted the agents to contact Defendant. AUSA Walz instructed Ms. Korb to “call [Mr. Wheeler] just to check in and see if he was representing Mr. Koerber.” (Id. at 173:14-15.) As directed, she called Mr. Wheeler on December 4, 2008. At first, Ms. Korb testified that she asked if Mr. Wheeler represented Defendant and he said he did not and that he had not spoken with Defendant in “many months.” (Id. at 149:6-10.) On cross-examination and after having her recollection refreshed with an email she wrote shortly after the phone call, she clarified that she asked him whether he had been retained, to which he replied, “No, I haven’t yet.” (Id. at 175:19-23.) Ms. Korb reported back to AUSA Walz who then instructed her to write an email to the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s internal Professional Responsibility Officer, Ms. Elizabethanne Stevens, to seek guidance on the “Rule 4.2 issue” (as highlighted in the subject line of the email) that he had recognized in the situation, given his knowledge of Mr. Wheeler’s representation of Defendant since at least March 2008. (Id. at 177:7-11; 230:9-19; Email from Ms. Korb to Ms. Stevens, admitted as Gov’t. Ex. 6 at 11/8/12 Hrg.)

Ms. Korb’s testimony on cross-examination was consistent with the email, in which she had written that she had asked Mr. Wheeler whether he had been retained to which he had replied that he had not and had not spoken with Defendant in six months. (Gov’t. Ex. 6.) She also wrote that Mr. Wheeler had offered to get a message to Defendant and had suggested that the Government could also contact Defendant’s other attorney Russell Skousen. Ms. Korb also stated in the email that her supervisor in the Utah Division of Securities had mentioned another attorney, Randy Mackey, representing Koerber in negotiations about a possible administrative/criminal action in early 2007.' (Id.) Upon questioning from the court, Ms. Korb acknowledged that she had never made a distinction between Mr. Skousen representing Defendant or Defendant’s businesses as “corporate counsel. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 186:20-25 to 187:1-4 [Dkt. No. 301].)

Failure to Ask for Mr. Wheeler’s Consent or Contact Defendant’s Other Counsel

Mr. Wheeler testified that in late 2008 Defendant was “substantially in arrears financially with our firm” , and that he told AUSA Walz at the time (when AUSA Walz called him to request that he advise Defendant not to contact Agent Marker) that he had not spoken to Defendant for a “number of months” and mentioned that he personally “would not be working on the Koerber file going forward .., because I hadn’t spoken with him.” (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/28/12, at 9:1-4; 9-12 [Dkt. No. 305].) Mr. Wheeler clarified that he “never ceased representing [Defendant] but I ceased doing work on the file.” (Id. at 28:17-19.) And Mr. Wheeler explained that he had told Ms. Korb in the December 4, 2008 telephone call that Defendant “is represented by other counsel,” referring “specifically to Mr. Skousen and suggested that she call Mr. Skousen because he was represented by a number of different lawyers.” {Id. at 9:15-18.) Billing records from Mr. Wheeler’s law firm show that in addition to his own time, at least two other attorneys within his firm, R. Van Wagoner and S. Harkness, worked on the file “IRS investigation” under the name Rick Koerber, with billing entries from all three covering the period from March 2007 to December 2009. {See Billing Records attached as Ex. 1 to Def.’s Mot. Suppl. Record, at e.g. 52, 54 [Dkt. No. 311-1].)

In her brief telephone call with Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Korb did not “ask for his consent to interview or speak with [Defendant] outside of [Mr. Wheeler’s] presence,” and she did not recall anyone else requesting Mr. Wheeler’s consent to contact Defendant outside of his presence. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 185:22 to 186:9 [Dkt. No. 301].) Moreover, Mr. Wheeler did not recall anyone from the U.S. Attorney’s Office informing him of the intention to make ex parte contact with Defendant or requesting his consent to do so. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/28/12, at 10:7 [Dkt. No. 305].) “Had it been,” testified Mr. Wheeler, “I would have immediately called [Defendant] and told him not to do it. But I did not understand he was going to go in there unrepresented and talk to government agents.... In 45 years of practice, I have never given my permission to let a client talk to the government without counsel present if they were targets.” {Id. at 10:7-16.) And although Mr. Wheeler had referred her to Defendant’s other attorney, Russell Skousen, neither she nor any other prosecutor or agent contacted Mr. Skousen about whether he represented Defendant or to request consent to interview him outside the presence of counsel. {Id. at 34:7-24.) For his part, Mr. Skousen “had been involved in [Mr. Wheeler’s] being retained with Jeff Thompson” and “was aware that [Mr. Wheeler] was working on matters related to the indictment and so forth”; thus, he understood that Mr. Wheeler “was representing Mr. Koerber in February 2009 or around that time period.” {Id. at 35:2^, 7-9.)

Purported Change in Government’s Understanding about Defendant’s Representation

Two weeks after Ms. Korb called Mr. Wheeler and wrote her email relating to the “Rule 4.2 issue,” both Agents Saxey and Marker still believed that, as of December 16, 2008, Defendant was represented by counsel. Agent Saxey noted this in his report of an interview he conducted with Jewel Kimber Fish, an associate of Defendant. (FBI 302 Report dated December 16, 2008, admitted as Def. Ex. B at 11/8/12 Hrg., at 5.) Agent Saxey testified that this belief as of that date was based on “reading state reports where Mr. Koerber had showed up with his attorney to visit with the state, based upon my conversations with prosecutors, and reviewing past reports, and after talking to Mr. Walz he believed at this time he was represented, that Mr. Koerber was represented.” (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 73:10-16 [Dkt. No. 301].) Agent Marker testified that it was also his understanding as of December 16, 2008 that Defendant “had access to several attorneys but that Max Wheeler was his criminal defense attorney,” and that he had come to consider Mr. Skousen as his personal counsel as well because at one point Defendant “said something to the effect that he takes all his initial legal questions to Mr. Skousen.” (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/14/12, pt. 1, at 28:5-15 [Dkt. No. 304].)

Despite the Government’s awareness of Defendant’s representation by multiple attorneys — Russell Skousen, Jeffery Thomspon, Randall Mackey, Robert Smith, Max Wheeler — throughout the course of the investigation since at least March 2007, AUSA Walz apparently believed that by February 2009 Defendant was no longer represented by any of them in relation to this investigation and the impending grand jury proceedings. AUSA Walz decided that Defendant “did not have counsel” following a conversation he recalls with former AUSA Loren Washburn in approximately October 2008. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 198:10-11 [Dkt. No. 801].) Mr. Washburn “came into [AUSA Walz’s] office, and said, [he] just got a call from Max Wheeler” who told Mr. Washburn that “the rumor on the street is that [Defendant] is going to be indicted, [and]' although Max says he does not represent [Defendant], he would make him available should he be indicted with the elliptical clause being so we don’t have to arrest him.” (Id. at 198:12-22.) AUSA Walz did not confirm this with Mr. Wheeler. (Id. at 199:24-200:2.) Mr. Wheeler did not specifically remember a conversation with former AUSA Washburn to that effect but testified that it was consistent with his practice to make arrangements for a client to appear at the initial appearance upon being indicted “even if I was not going to go forward representing him during the defense of the case. I would have done what I could to make sure that a summons issued, he was not arrested, and that he had counsel to appear with him even though it would not be me.” (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/28/12, at 20:20-24 [Dkt. No. 305].) Although Mr. Wheeler explained that this would have been his general approach where a client was indicted and he would not be continuing with the representation in the defense of the case, he also testified that he first heard the rumor from Defendant that he was going to be indicted shortly before the indictment was returned in May 2009. (Id. at 29:5-12.)

Prosecutors’ Authorization of the Agents’ Ex Parte Interviews

Agent Saxey testified that in his experience he can speak with represented targets of his investigation “when either the lawyer for the witness has consented” or when he has “been instructed by the prosecutors on the case” to contact the person. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 64:11-18 [Dkt. No. 301].) In this case, he' had been instructed by AUSA Walz to wait to contact Defendant until the prosecutors “had taken additional steps.” '(Id. at 87:11-14.) In late January 2009, one of the members of the prosecution team — Agent Saxey believes it was AUSA Walz — said that he could .contact and interview Defendant because they had “received an opinion, we’ve talked to his attorney, something to that effect.” (Id. at 86:1-3.) Based on this, at the beginning of February 2009, Agent Saxey believed Defendant was no longer represented by any of the attorneys who he was aware had previously been involved in Defendant’s representation. (Id. at 87:15-22.) AUSA Walz deferred to Agent Saxey’s memory of his authorizing the first interview in February 2009. (Id. at 229:11-15.) With this authorization, Agent Saxey reached out to Defendant through Jewel Kimber asking Defendant to make contact with him and also left one or more voicemails on Defendant’s cell phone to contact him. • Exchanging voicemails, Defendant then left a message for Agent Saxey explaining that he had received Agent Saxey’s voicemail and had tried unsuccessfully to reach his attorney Max Wheeler, (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/14/12, pt. 2, at 5:23-6:17 [Dkt. No. 303]), but that he would be willing to meet with the agents “if it was okay with Mr. Walz.” (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 24:10-11 [Dkt. No. 301].) Defendant then voluntarily appeared, without counsel, at the FBI’s office in Salt Lake City for the first interview with Agents Saxey and Marker on February 9, 2009.

During the February 9, 2009 interview, Agent Saxey stated that “Rick, you were represented for a while, and we’re not permitted to talk to you, but in the future I plan on talking to you about what information you might have.” (Tr. 2/13/09 Int., attached as Ex. 10 to Mumford Dec!., at 38.) Defendant expressed immediate surprise at Agent Saxey’s off-hand remark:

KOERBER: When you say I was represented for a while what do you mean?

SA SAXEY: It was our uh, uh, impression that Max Wheeler was your attorney for a while

KOERBER: So it’s your impression that Max is not representing me?

SA SAXEY: Correct. Isn’t that the case?

KOERBER: Well that’s news to me.

SA SAXEY: He is representing you?

KOERBER: I haven’t heard opposite. He’s told me if I wanted him to continue representing me I gotta pay my bilk

SA SAXEY: Uh-huh.

KOERBER: But he hasn’t given me a deadline for that or anything.

SA SAXEY: Okay it was our impression you are not represented by Max Wheeler anymore.

KOERBER: I don’t know how you have that.... And then I got a phone call from uh, my general attorney is Russ Skousen. And he coordinates all these different attorneys. He’s the one that brought Max to the table____ So Max sent me an email, and he said Stu Walz contacted me and wanted to know what you were doing contacting his agents. And my response was well they’re contacting everybody I know. And he said look don’t do that. And he said I did not tell Stu Walz I was not representing you, but you need to pay your bilk And that’s the last I’ve heard from him. So, obviously I need to call Max.

(Id. at 39^10.) At that point Agent Saxey asked Defendant if he wanted to stop the interview and Defendant said “No I’m all right.” (Id.) After nearly four hours of interview, however, Defendant reiterated his surprise at the agent’s belief that he was not represented: “Uh I’m surprised about the whole Max thing. As far as I’m concerned Max still does represent me. He might be a little pissed that I came and talked to ya.” (Id. at 146.)

Agent Saxey became unsure about whether Defendant was, in fact, represented or not after these comments, but he continued the interview and did nothing following the interview to verify whether Defendant was represented. Agent Saxey explained that he “trusted Mr. Walz and the prosecutors I was working with” as to their position on whether Defendant was represented when they had instructed the agents to proceed with the ex parte interview. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 97:6-7 [Dkt. No. 301].) Agent Marker confirmed that he also did nothing during or after the first interview to verify whether Defendant was, in fact, represented by any of the Defendant’s attorneys of whom he had personally become aware in connection with the investigation. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/14/12, pt. 1, at 41:13-20; 44:1-3 [Dkt. No. 304].) Agent Marker testified that, to his knowledge, no one on the prosecution team verified whether Defendant was represented following the first interview. (Id. at 44:8.)

AUSA Walz discussed the first interview with the agents before the second interview on February 26, 2009. As to the discussions between the agents and AUSA Walz after the first interview, the AUSA testified that “I’m pretty sure I asked, ‘What did he say about Max Wheeler,’ and he said, ‘He thought he represented him.’ ” (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/8/12, at 221:5-6 [Dkt. No. 301].) Although AUSA Walz was working daily across from Mr. Wheeler on a month-long trial in February 2009, he never broached the issue with Mr. Wheeler following Defendant’s statements in the first interview. Instead, AUSA Walz specifically authorized the second interview to proceed. (Id. at 229:6-11.) Moreover, AUSA Walz instructed Agent Saxey to ask Defendant whether he would be relying on an “advice of counsel defense” at trial (id. at 219:11-16), and whether he would “waive privilege in some area,” a question Agent Saxey remembered well because, despite his experience, he had never heard that before. (Id. at 37:3-7; 131:3-14.) Also, AUSA Mayfield provided Agent Marker with five questions to ask Defendant during the second interview, including questions about Defendant’s actions towards investors in Wyoming and about accountants and attorneys he had relied on. (Tr. Ev. Hrg. 11/14/12, pt. 1, at 51:10-22 [Dkt. No. 304].)

Defendant again voluntarily appeared for the second interview at the FBI’s office in Salt Lake City. The agents informed him that he was not under arrest or indictment, that he was free to leave at the end of the interview, and that he was “[f]ree to stop and say you want to consult an attorney at any time.” (Tr. 2/26/09 Int., attached as Ex. 10 to Mumford Deck, at 2.) Defendant proceeded voluntarily with the interview after receiving this statement.

C. Findings of Fact and Legal Analysis

1. Dispositive Findings of Fact Relevant for Legal Analysis

The Factual Background above substantiates the salient, dispositive facts that shape the court’s legal reasoning in granting Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, as follows.

a. The Government Was Aware of Defendant’s Representation.

The testimony and other evidence in the record, together with both necessary and reasonable inferences that arise therefrom, persuade the court that the Government had actual knowledge that Defendant was represented by counsel at the time of the February 2009 interviews.

First, no doubt can exist as to the Government’s actual knowledge that Defendant was represented by counsel before the second interview on February 26, 2009. Defendant expressed during the first interview on February 13, 2009 that he believed he was represented. That, at the very least, should have prompted prosecutors, or the interviewing agents, to reach out to Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Skousen, both of whom Defendant mentioned in his remarks about his representation, to confirm whether Defendant was represented and, if so, whether counsel consented to his being interviewed outside of the presence of counsel.

Second, the court finds unconvincing testimony to the effect that, despite manifest awareness that Defendant was represented by a number of different attorneys throughout the course of the investigation — an investigation on which Agent Marker had been involved since 2006 on behalf of the IRS and in the course of which he had interacted with Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Skousen, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Smith — prosecutors formulated a belief at some point after December 16, 2008 that Defendant was no longer represented by any of these attorneys. The conversation AUSA Walz remembers with former AUSA Washburn in approximately October 2008 is unreliable in the face of more credible contrary testimony and evidence that Mr. Wheeler did not hear rumors about any indictment until shortly before May 2009 and that Agent Saxey believed, based on discussions with prosecutors, that AUSA Walz still believed as of December 16, 2008 that Defendant was represented. Moreover, even if the conversation with Mr. Washburn did occur in October 2008 and proceeded as AUSA Walz remembers, this does not support a reasonable inference that Defendant was not in fact represented, even by Mr. Wheeler. Stating that he would not be continuing to represent Defendant by defending him in the case after the indictment is not the same as Mr. Wheeler saying that he does not currently represent him. It also does not mean that other attorneys in his firm were not at that time or would not be representing him after the initial appearance. Billing records show that Defendant was indeed a client of the firm throughout this entire time period, with two other attorneys besides Mr. Wheeler submitting time-sheets to the matter, though Defendant was admittedly behind in paying his fees. Perhaps one of them would have taken the matter forward after the initial appearance. In any event, even assuming that Mr. Wheeler meant that neither he nor colleagues in his firm who were currently billing to the matter would be representing Defendant after the initial appearance or even that they were no longer representing him at present (in October 2008), which was not the case, this does nothing to address Defendant’s representation by Mr. Skousen or the other attorneys of whom the team, particularly Agent Marker (and through him Agent Saxey), was aware. Neither AUSA Walz nor anyone from the prosecution team or the investigation team confirmed with any of those other attorneys whether they were representing Defendant.

Third, when AUSA Walz instructed Ms. Korb at the beginning of December 2008 to check in with Mr. Wheeler about his representation of Defendant because he wanted the agents to be able to interview Defendant, Ms. Korb’s query as to whether Mr. Wheeler had been retained did not address the question of whether he was currently representing Defendant. From the record it appears likely that Mr. Wheeler was literally answering the specific question of whether he had been retained when he answered in the negative. And despite his answer that he had not yet been retained, it was open and obvious that he had been representing Defendant as to aspects of this prosecution/investigation since 2007. Though Mr. Wheeler had not yet been retained according to his answer to Ms. Korb in early December 2008, he had already intervened in the Government’s attempt to subpoena Defendant as a custodian of records of his defunct companies in March 2008. His strongly worded letter of objection at that time recognized Defendant as the target of the investigation and refused to make him available to appear before the grand jury in that capacity. Nothing in the record provides the basis for a reasonable inference on the part of the Government that Defendant was no longer represented by Mr. Wheeler at any point after March 2008. To the contrary, a necessary inference from all the testimony and evidence in the record is that Mr. Wheeler or attorneys at his firm continued to represent Defendant. Defendant himself believed this when the issue was raised in the first interview on February 13, 2009. Certainly, nothing in the record indicates any reasonable basis for an inference on the part of the Government that any of the other attorneys involved in Defendant’s representation throughout the course of the investigation between 2006 and February 2009 had ceased their representation. Testimony focused almost exclusively on Mr. Wheeler.

In conclusion, the simple fact is that the Government knew that Defendant was represented in this matter as early as March 2007 and reaffirmed in March of 2008 through direct correspondence with Max Wheeler. Nothing occurred at any time before February 13, 2009 that would support a reasonable inference that the representation had changed. And the record supports no inference that Mr. Skousen had ceased representing Defendant, not to mention the other attorneys with whom agents had worked and of whom prosecutors were aware. As the court mentioned during oral argument on April 18, 2013, “it would be so simple to simply call up and say, Max — they have known each other a long time — we want to interview Mr. Koerber, do you have any objection? If they had done that, we wouldn’t be here today.” (Tr. Hrg. 4/18/13, at 33:18-24 [Dkt. No. 324].) Nothing in the oral argument, the transcripts of the evidentiary hearings, or the voluminous rounds of briefing on this situation has persuaded the court to abandon its observation at oral argument that “the way it was approached at least allows an inference that they didn’t want to get that response, they wanted to be coy and say, can we justify saying that he’s not represented so we can interview him.” (Id. at 34:2-6.) The record supports the court’s inference that prosecutors intended to indict Defendant at the time they instructed the investigators to contact him and arrange the interviews, and this desire or focus rationally explains the Government’s efforts to “justify saying that he’s not represented so we can interview him.” In any event, this only relates to Mr. Wheeler — at oral argument the court asked, “why didn’t they call up Mr. Skousen and say, we want to talk to him, do you have any objection? All of this could have been avoided so simply, and they either would have said yes or no, and we would not have been here.” (Id. at 34:8-12.) Facts responsive to this question never surfaced in either the oral argument or the briefs, except for the Government’s tenuous assertion that Mr. Skousen “never indicated that he was involved in the representation in the criminal case.” (Id. at 34:18-19.) This response does nothing to raise an inference that he was no longer representing Defendant in this investigation as the Government was aware that he had been since at least March 2007 when Defendant told Agent Marker that he wanted his counsel Mr. Skousen present during the March 2007 meeting.

b. The February Interviews Were Noncustodial.

During oral argument, the court revealed that it was “not inclined to find on this evidence that the defendant, Mr. Koerber, was in custody during either of the interviews.” (Id. at 4:4-6.) After carefully reviewing the post hearing briefs, the transcripts of the evidentiary hearing, and the transcripts of both February 2009 interviews, the court remains convinced that both interviews were noncustodial. Defendant voluntarily appeared, openly discussed issues with the agents, spoke most of the time, was told he was not under arrest and would be free to leave, and did leave freely at the conclusion of both interviews. No indicia of custody have emerged in the evidence or arguments. Moreover, even after Defendant raised the concern about the agents’ apparent mistaken understanding that he was no longer represented by Mr. Wheeler (and referred also to his other counsel Mr. Skousen), and the agents asked him if he wanted to stop, he said that he was fine to continue.

2. The Sixth Amendment

The court need not evaluate the impact under the Sixth Amendment of the Government’s ex parte contact in noncustodial, pre-indictment interviews with a target of its investigation whom it intended to indict because, even assuming that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached, the court finds that Defendant voluntarily waived it. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend VI. The Supreme Court, following a long line of cases addressing the issue, has recently again reiterated that this Sixth Amendment right to counsel “does not attach until a prosecution is commenced.” Rothgery v. Gillespie Cty., Tex., 554 U.S. 191, 198, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (2008) (quoting McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991)). The Supreme Court has therefore “pegged commencement [of the right to counsel] to ‘the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings — whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984)). The Supreme Court typically caveats this delineation of the right’s attachment by explaining that “[t]he rule is no ‘mere formalism,’ but a recognition of the point at which ‘the government has committed itself to prosecute,’ ‘the adverse positions of government and defendant have solidified,’ and the accused ‘finds himself faced with the prosecutorial forces of organized society, and immersed in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law.’ ” Id. (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972)). Once the right attaches, “the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to have counsel present at all ‘critical’ stages of the criminal proceedings,” including “[interrogation by the State.” Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 786, 129 S.Ct. 2079, 173 L.Ed.2d 955 (2009) (citing United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 227-28, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)).

In Montejo, the Supreme Court went on to explain that “[o]ur precedents also place beyond doubt that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be waived by a defendant, so long as relinquishment of the right is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.” Id. Moreover, a “defendant may waive the right whether or not he is already represented by counsel; the decision to waive need not itself be counseled.” Id. (citing Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 352-53, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990)). Reiterating, “[i]n determining whether a Sixth Amendment waiver was knowing and voluntary, there is no reason categorically to distinguish an unrepresented defendant from a represented one.” Id. at 798, 129 S.Ct. 2079. The Court observed that receiving and waiving Miranda rights was sufficient to waive the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as well. Id. at 786, 129 S.Ct. 2079.

Here, Defendant was not in custody at the time of either interview. As a result, the agents were not required to advise him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 456, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The advisement of rights under Miranda is a prerequisite for admissibility “only where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him in custody.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) (per curiam). Determining whether someone is in custody for purposes of Miranda is an objective test asking whether “a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interview and leave.” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 665, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004). Based on “all the circumstances surrounding” each of the two interviews in February, Defendant was not in custody. Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526. He appeared voluntarily for both interviews and even though he was not in custody the agents explained that he was not under arrest or indictment, was free to leave at any time, and that anything he said could be used against him. When he raised an issue about his representation during the first interview, Agent Saxey asked if he wanted to stop and he said that he was fine and could continue. In the second interview, he was advised that he was free to stop at any time and say that he wanted to consult an attorney. Defendant never did so but pressed forward with the interview.

The court finds that Defendant’s actions constituted a “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Montejo, 556 U.S. at 786, 129 S.Ct. 2079. This waiver was not connected to a waiver of his Miranda rights, as examined in Montejo, because he was not in custody and was not formally read his Miranda rights, as a result. But the waiver was nevertheless voluntary and effective. When Agent Saxey asked him if he wanted to stop in the first interview when he told the agents that he was represented and he decided to continue, he waived any Sixth Amendment right to counsel that might have attached in this noncustodial, pre-indictment interview. In the second interview, when he was told he could stop at any time and consult an attorney, and he did not do so but voluntarily pressed forward with the interview anyway, he waived any Sixth Amendment right to counsel that might have attached by that time. It should not be overlooked that Defendant is a sophisticated individual with extensive experience in business and previous dealings with the authorities. His voluntary decision to continue with the noncustodial interviews was knowing and intelligent.

3. Rule 4.2 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct

The Government violated Rule 4.2(a) of Utah’s Rules of Professional Conduct when it contacted and interviewed Defendant knowing him to be represented by counsel without first obtaining his counsel’s consent or court approval. Rule 4.2(a) provides that

[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an attorney may, without such prior consent, communicate with another’s client if authorized to do so by any law, rule, or court order, in which event the communication shall be strictly restricted to that allowed by the law, rule or court order, or as authorized by paragraphs (b), (e), (d), or (3) of this Rule.

Rule 4.2(a) Utah R. Prof. Conduct (2012). “A person is ‘known’ to be represented when the lawyer has actual knowledge of the representation. Knowledge is a question of fact to be resolved by reference to the totality of the circumstances, including reference to any written notice of the representation.” Id. cmt. [21]. And, importantly, “[a] person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.” Rule 1.0(g) Utah R. Prof. Conduct. The rule applies to prosecutors practicing before the District Court for the District of Utah. DUCivR 83 — 1.1(g); DUCivR 83-1.5.1(a). Moreover, violation of the ethical rules, including the no-contact rule provided in Rule 4.2(a), constitutes a violation of federal statute as well pursuant to the Citizens Protection Act of 1999, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530B (the “Protection Act”), also known as the “McDade Amendment.” This federal statutory violation is significant for the due process analysis in Section II.C.4 below.

As a preliminary matter, the Government argues that Comment [14] shelters it from the Rule’s prohibition. {See, e.g., PL’s Resp. to Def.’s Suppl. Mot. Supp. 75-76 [Dkt. No. 320].) Comment [14] provides, in relevant part, that “[n]othing in this Rule, however, prevents law enforcement officers, even if acting under the general supervision of a government lawyer, from questioning a represented person. The actions of the officers will not be imputed to the government lawyer unless the conversation has been ‘scripted’ by the government lawyer.” Rule 4.2 Utah R. Civ. P. cmt. [14]. The court agrees that this would be the Government’s strongest grounds under the circumstances and facts in this case to avoid a violation of Rule 4.2. Comment [14] effectively ties in to the “alter ego” analysis — in certain circumstances “enforcement officials are agents of the prosecuting party.” United States v. Thomas, 474 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir.1973); United States v. Ryans, 903 F.2d 731, 735 (10th Cir.1990) (“The parties do not dispute the applicability