in United States v. Jack William Tocco concerns a September 24, 1998 plea-negotiation letter sent by the government to Corrado. That letter was addressed to Paul Corrado in care of his attorney’s law office, where it was delivered. Corrado argues that by addressing the letter directly to him, the government interfered with his right to the assistance of counsel. The district court considered Corrado’s allegations and found, as a factual matter, that “there was no intended or actual interference with attorney-client relationships.” This finding is not clearly erroneous. The government’s mistake falls far short of an unconstitutional interference with Corrado’s right to the effective assistance of counsel. See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 558, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (<HOLDING>). D. Brady material Corrado next argues that
holding that a defendant must demonstrate that the governments intrusion upon his relationship with his attorney created a possibility of either injury to his defense or benefit to the government in order to establish a violation of the right to counsel holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute holding that the defendant had no legitimate basis to justify his refusal to cooperate with his appointed attorney and therefore did not demonstrate good cause for the court to appoint substitute counsel holding that defendant forfeited his right to counsel by verbally abusing and threatening to harm his attorney threatening to sue his attorney on four different occasions and attempting to persuade his attorney to engage in unethical conduct holding that the defendant validly waived right to conflictfree representation where the defendant knew a conflict existed its effect on his defense and his right to have other counsel appointed