RUSSO
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court denied the applicant's request for a stay of his contempt sentence.
An applicant was sentenced in a civil contempt proceeding for refusing to answer grand jury questions. He sought a stay of the sentence, raising the i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Illegal Electronic Surveillance cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Douglas,
Circuit Justice.
Applicant has been sentenced in a civil contempt proceeding for refusal to answer questions before a grand jury. Judge Barnes of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay until August 9, 1971, to permit an application for a further stay to this Court. Mr. Justice Black continued the stay until August 16, 1971, so that I would have time to consider the matter at my home in Goose Prairie, Washington.
I have gone over the application and the opposition filed by the United States, and I deny the stay.
The principal question sought to be raised concerns the standing of grand jury witnesses, under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to raise the question whether the appearance and examination of a witness before a grand jury resulted from illegal electronic surveillance.* The question is an important one on which there seems to be conflict among the Circuits. Compare In re Evans, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 310, 452 F. 2d 1239, and In re Egan, 450 F. 2d 199 (CA3) (both holding that a grand jury witness has standing to object to illegal wiretaps), with Bacon v. United States, 446 F. 2d 667 (CA9), and United States v. Parnas, 443 F. 2d 837 (CA9) (to the contrary). But in this case, the United States represented to the District Court that “no wiretaps of any kind were used in this case.” Applicant, so far as I can ascertain, did not present any evidence of or indicate probable cause for believing (or even suspecting) that his wires had been tapped or that wires of others had been tapped with the result that his privacy had been implicated. There must be some credible evidence that the prosecution violated the law before ponderous judicial machinery is invoked to delay grand jury proceedings.
Denied.
It is so ordered.
*
Title 18 U. S. C. §2515 provides:
“Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.”
Title 18 U. S. C. §2518 (10) (a) provides, in part:
“Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that—
“(i) the communication was unlawfully intercepted;
“(ii) the order of authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; or
“(iii) the interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974)…specifically evidence that the action was taken by.or at the direction of United States officials. Upon his failure to make such an offer the district court may, in its discretion, decline to hold an evidentiary hearing. Cf. Russo v. United States, 404 U.S. 1209, 92 S.Ct. 4, 30 L.Ed.2d 13 (Douglas, J., sitting as a circuit judge). .' At tlie time of Toscanino’s trial, Caramian was already serving an 18-year sentence for narcotics violations and bail jumping. . 18 U.S.C. § 3504 provides: ■‘(a) In any tria…
-
In re Zoia Horn, 458 F.2d 468 (3d Cir. 1972)…rs had not presented “any evidence demonstrating that these representations by the Government [were] false,” id. at 122, a hearing was not warranted. In so holding we cited In re Idella Marx, 451 F. 2d 466 (1st Cir. 1971) and Russo v. United States, 404 U.S. 1209, 92 S.Ct. 4, 30 L.Ed.2d 13 (Douglas, Circuit Justice, 1971). Appellant here claims that Grumbles does not apply to the instant case because the Government’s affidavit denying surveillance, in addition to being based on hearsay, was identical to an a…
-
In re Grumbles, 453 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1971)…tated in affidavit form.10 The Grumbles have not presented any evidence demonstrating that these representations by the Government are false, and this contention is rejected. In Re Idella Marx, 451 F. 2d 466 (1st Cir., 1971); Russo v. United States, 404 U.S. 1209, 92 S.Ct. 4, 30 L.Ed.2d 13 (1971) (Douglas, J., sitting as Circuit Justice).11 See United States v. Egan, 450 F. 2d 199 (3d Cir., 1971), cert, granted, 404 U.S. 990, 92 S.Ct. 531, 30 L.Ed.2d 541 (1971). Finally, the Grumbles argue that the Sixth Am…
Authorities Cited
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 450 F.2d 199 (3d Cir. 1971)
- In re Evans v. Violations OF 18 U.S.C. Sections 231, 452 F.2d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Gelbard, 443 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1971)
- In re Bacon v. United States, 446 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1971)