Law enforcement never went after Tom Hagen, who after all was someone who was privy to all of Michael's plans to murder people, etc. He had no buffers, and he knew enough to put Michael away forever.

There is no attorney-client privilege where the client is telling the attorney in advance that he is going to commit a crime. If someone tells an attorney "Yesterday I killed so and so," it is privileged and the attorney cannot be compelled to testify. On the other hand the "crime-fraud" exception to
privilege is if the client says he is going to kill someone,
the attorney is OBLIGATED to rat the client out. Hagen knew Michael was going to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey; that Michael was going to "going to meet with the heads of the five families" and that Michael wanted Roth's "plane met in Miami." He also activley participated in the blackmail of Geary, which happened to involve a murder. So why was Hagen never targeted by law enforcement?

Could it be that Michael's often public and frequent banishment of Tom from "certain meetings" have been a ruse to make people have the impression that Tom was not, as Sollozzo wrongly believed, "on the muscle end of the family?"

He was a smart lawyer and always covered his tracks.

Sollozzo did not believe Tom was in the muscle end of the family. So, Sollozzo rightly believed.

Allowing for authorial license, I guess the Feds could have gone after several members of the Corleone family. Since the Feds were apparently surveilling the Corleones at least since the mid-forties at least, they probably knew of Tom's position in the family and certainly they did after the murder of the Dons.

I think it was just FFC's choice to ignore Tom's complicity as a component of the movie.

What would they get him on? Conspiracy?

Conspiracy, accessory before the fact, acccessory after the fact.

Thats probably the most reasonable answer IMO.

One thing I think they got wrong in GF II is having the scene at the Senate hearings where Tom was allowed to act as Michael's lawyer. If you look on the posters they have behind the Senators they have a breakdown of the family with Tom listed as Consigliare(sp?). I would think that not only would they not allow Tom to act as Michael's lawyer, they would have required Tom to testify under oath on his own.

I'm sure the Senate investigators were well aware that Tom knew enough to put Michael away for a dozen lifetimes.

There are several plausible reasons why they wouldn't have tried to force him to testify:

1. They wanted to spring a perjury trap for Michael. If Tom had been involved, Michael would have simply taken the 5th, knowing that they had a strong witness against him.

2. They already had Pentangeli's testimony directly implicating Michael. They may have been confident enough that they didn't feel they needed to go to the trouble of arranging a corroborating witness.

3. They didn't have the goods on Tom like they did on Pentangeli (trafficking, murder one, and a lot more). Plus, Tom was not found half-dead, screaming that Michael Corleone betrayed him.

4. Roth and Questadt may have believed (correctly, IMHO), that Tom would NEVER have testified against Michael and the Family, regardless of the cost to Tom.

5. Maybe they did go after Tom. He turned them down. Does he have to tell us about every offer he gets?

I am not a lawyer, and my only experience with the procedures of law is being a faithful viewer of Perry Mason, so with that said, allow me to make this post.

First of all it was just a hearing, not a trial, and I think procedures are a little more lax. Also I would imagine that at that point, Tom was not convicted of any crime, and as such, most likely wasn't disbarred, and still able to practice law.

This is a really good question, and the replies have been very astute. But I think we're trying to apply modern-day experiences in law enforcement and surveillance to circumstances of the Forties and Fifties:
For example, the judge in Gotti's last trial barred his long-time lawyer, Bruce Cutler, from representing Gotti because FBI surveillance tapes (obtained legally through a court order) provided clear evidence that Cutler and his partner, Gerald Shargel, were acting as "house counsel" to Gotti. But in Michael and Tom's day, the FBI was largely uninterested in organized crime (Hoover didn't put the Mob on the front burner until after the Valachi hearings in '62). Surveillance techniques sucked in those days, and judges (particulary those that Vito and Michael would have had in their pockets) would be reluctant to authorize wiretaps or pen registers that would stand up as evidence in a trial.

Tom had a solid front as a lawyer, which made him "an officer of the court." Excluding him, attempting to use him as a witness against his client, or prosecuting him, in those days could have made for a serious protest by the state or federal Bar Associations, and would have provided Michael with a basis for an appeal of any conviction obtained in any part by Tom's testimony. Any prosecutorial office would have to work uphill to prove that Tom was not acting in a client/counsel privileged situation. And, as has been pointed out here, he was deliberately excluded from certain negotiations specifically to preserve his "legitimate" front.

Finally, if Michael was as careful as Vito had been in giving orders to others through Tom--with no other witnesses--he couldn't have been convicted on Tom's testimony alone: a corroberating witness is required in most felony cases. That's why I find the penultimate boathouse scene an anomaly: it made for good drama, but Michael ordering Frankie's and Roth's deaths with Tom, Rocco and Neri present was a serious breach of security.

Tom also knew in advance of Tessio's death, he witnessed Carlo's death, and he blackmailed Geary!

I agree with TB. I also point up that we sometimes fail to take into account that this is all fiction and that a movie length of 3-4 hours is starting to stretch the attention span of even the most avid movie-goer. A director/producer can't cover every angle and the story board has to accomodate many variables. That all implies choices. Yes, FFC could have pursued a storyline about Tom, but to do so would have required that he eschew another storyline about hat was included.

Well, this is always the case, and it is a given in any hypothetical. Further as one of the most avid Godfather fans, I could watch a 24 hour version of it.

There was a particular scene in which Kay came to the Mall and asked Tom to give Michael a letter. Tom refused saying if he accepted that letter he would be legally admitting he had information as to Michael's whereabouts.

I think this was an attempt by FFC and Puzzo to portray Tom as a very slick (as in slick willy) lawyer that knew all the ins and outs of staying out of trouble.

I don't think that was Puzo's or FFC's intent at all. You might expect that Kay would want to get in touch with Michael and that a prudent lawyer would realize the liability he would incur by accepting the letter. Tom's response to Kay was Law school 101.

Do you know of any "controlling legal authority" to substantiate your opionion?

Title 18 of the US Code on the federal level and Code of Criminal Procedure on the state level.

Yes, well to all non-lawyers it looks like Hagen knows what he's doing and he's slick enough not to be implicated enough for law enforcement to be able to get him.

I've been reading all the replies that have been posted in answer to the original question, and most have been valid replies.

And after reading these replies and contemplating dontomasso's original question, I've come up with one of my own that takes dontomasso's question even a step further:

Why didn't Willie Cicci implicate Tom Hagen in his testimony in front of the Senate Committee? Didn't we see Willie and Tom both confronting Tessio at the end of GFIII right before his demise?

It's obvious that Cicci turned states evidence because the government had killings and other crimes pinned on him, so why didn't he implicate Hagen in his testimony?

Cicci had a good lawyer who told him to onlyh answer the specific auestions he was asked. No one asked him who the witnesses to various murders were, but instead they asked whether or not Cicci had ever received a direct orderfrom Michael Corleone to kill anyonw, to which he answered truthfully.
For that lapse Questadt should have been forced to give Roth some money back.

Hagen was as slippery as a snake.You couldn't pin him for anything.

So his not implicating Tom and his only answering specific questions and testifying that he never recieved a direct order from Michael tells me that Cicci was placed under arrest but DID NOT turn states evidence or make any kind of deal with the government.

He could have copped a plea to do a long sentence in exchange for testifying that he was a "button" and that he murdered people at the behest of his "superiors," but he could not finger Michael, and they probably never asked him about Tom.

Well, again we have to acknowlege film time limitations and story board. If Cicci implicates Tom, how does that affect the film's story board overall? If FFC was thinking about a GFIII, he could have had Tom severly implicated, convicted, sent to prison and have him die there. That still gets Mike off the hook, but it injures the Roth set it up beautifully storyline.

Also, the novel states that Mike instructed Clemenza personally who would have then instructed Cicci at least regarding Tessio's demise.

Others have posted that Cicci appeared before a hearing; it was not a trial. Yes, his lawyer probably instructed him to answer only the questions he was asked. At trial, he probably would not have been put on the stand. By the way, I think that it was a legal error for Mike to read his statement or even enter it into the record. The last thing a potential defedant wants to do is to give the other side any fodder.

As for your first point Clemenza was A) DEAD & B) A BUFFA.

As for your second point, you are correct, but Micke and Tom has a "balls to the wall" strategy in which they challenged the committee to bring someone forward to contradict Michael's statement. Obviously they didn't know Pentangeli was alive.

Plus, Michael was the committee's target--not Tom. If Cicci had implicated Tom, Michael would have gotten a certified pass: Tom was the bad guy, not him. As we've discussed here many times: Michael was never that happy with Tom as consigliere, and probably blamed him for Sonny's death and other problems. After Michael learned that Pentangeli was alive, and that he'd waltzed into five counts of perjury in part because Tom failed to learn of Frankie's survival, Michael would have been more than ready to throw Tom to the wolves. You might argue that, if the committee had squeezed Tom, he might have ratted out Michael. Not likely, with his wife and kids living on the compound and his knowledge that Michael never gave an enemy a pass. Also, Michael had spent a lot of time putting around the notion that Tom was just his lawyer, and was excluded from certain matters. Power counts--and Michael had far more power than Tom.

Quite possible Turnbull.

However, if that be the case, than WHY would the committee put Hagen's picture up on the "family" tree board and list him as a consigliere? Was it done to try and tarnish Michael's character that much more? Make it appear that Michael Corleone's lawyer was not one to be believed or trusted because he was really nothing more than a common mafia hood himself?

My point is if they were willing to put a picture of Michael's lawyer up on the mafia family tree board, than why not go the extra mile and try to destroy both Michael and Hagen's credibility at the same time by having Cicci give testimony about Hagen?

They could have destroy Michael's chances of having Hagen represent him just in case the hearing produced enough evidence to go to trial. Sort of in the same manner as the government did with Gotti and Cutler.

These NON actions by the committee towards Hagen with nothing being said by Cicci about Hagen, plus Cicci's testimony in general (which really helped Michael), and the fact that Michael did NOT seek revenge on Cicci is what now makes me believe that Cicci really did not turn rat and make a deal with the government.

Of course, this is a Senate hearing and not a criminal prosecution. The committee is trying to garner information that may or may not support a criminal prosecution. But it's main purpose was to corroborate in public the private testimony they had received or information made available to them by the FBI.

Michael is the main target because the Committee's information is that Michael is a Don. Remember, this is pre-RICO days and trying to pin something on Tom would be a stretch. being a Consigigliere is not in itself a crime (pre-RICO). Whether it's for show or something more substantive, the Committee's target is Michael. That's why I say that his reading or rendering a statement was legally inadvisable but makes for good theater.

Cicci could only corroborate Frankie's or, if he was alive, Clemenza's testimony. Cicci's testimony, with proper corroboration, could have jeopardized Frankie's or Clemenza's legal standing since he took orders from both of them. I'm not sure at all that Cicci ever got an order from Tom. In the novel it states that Mike instructed Clemenza personally about the disposal of Tessio et al. So, although Tom appeared in the film to be enmeshed in Tessio's murder, he probably did not witness any specific instructions. It was Clememza who instructed Cicci. So, Tom was, to a large extent off the hook.

Of course, having your picture pinned up there on the board as a member of a MAFIA family's hierarchy says alot about you.

I am fully aware that this was not a trial. I understand that it was a hearing. But if the Committee was willing to put Hagen's face up on a mob family tree crime board, than surely they would have loved to have a witness who could possibly implicate both The Don and his Consigliere. Both Michael and his lawyer. And therefore by the committee including Hagen on their board as a member of the family, a high ranking figure right under the head of the family, it is quite obvious that they would have loved to take him down along with Michael.

Taking Hagen down along with Michael by having corroborating testimony from two underlings would have crippled Michael in an eventual trial in a court of law.

But I don't believe that Cicci flipped because if he did, he would have implicated Frankie and would have corroborated the committee's assertion that Tom Hagen was indeed a big shot in the Corleone crime family. He would have told the committee about how Tom Hagen was involved in the set up that led to the demise of Tessio. Michael would have taken revenge on Cicci just as he did on all those who he thought betrayed him or were a threat to him. But Michael did not include Cicci in those plans because Cicci did not turn rat.

So while everything that you say is true, the reply still does not address the bottom line question of whether Willie Cicci had turned rat or not.

I think, to put it in a short, street-wise kind of way, Cicci was "half-a-rat." Without question, he should have just taken the fifth, it's in the gangster's handbook. When he did speak, he really only gave them bullshit. I agree with Don Cardi, in that I'm not sure I'd classify him a rat.