IN RE BERG ET AL.
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 Circuit Justice granted a stay of proceedings pending full Court review, finding the case analogous to prior electronic surveillance cases.
An application for a stay was filed, and the Court of Appeals had previously granted a stay. The issue involved electronic surveillance and potential …
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 Aggrieved Person cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.
The Court of Appeals granted a stay in this case until 5:30 p. m. (P. s. t.) today. While the application was filed here October 28, 1972, I did not desire to act until the Solicitor General had time to respond. His response came in yesterday afternoon.
My conclusion is that the case is analogous to the Ellsberg case (Russo v. Byrne, No. 72-307, O. T. 1972) now before the Court; but is more particularly related to Black v. United States, 385 U. S. 26, and O’Brien v. United States, 386 U. S. 345.
The issue of electronic surveillance in the present case raises questions under the Sixth as well as the Fourth Amendment. Central is the question whether the unawareness of the prosecution is sufficient to bring to an end the judicial inquiry or whether some diligent search of the prosecution is necessary.* In Black a new trial was ordered even though the prosecutor did not know he had in his possession attorney-client conversations and even though none of them was used.
I have concluded to grant a stay, good until the matter can be presented to the full Court and until the Court acts on it.
*
While the prosecution filed affidavits that none of applicants’ conversations was “bugged,” there had been no search for any conversations of their attorneys. It would seem that a client is an “aggrieved” person within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. §§2510 (11) and 3504 (a) (1) when and if the conversations of his attorney are “bugged” and used against him.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- O'Brien v. United States, 386 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1967)
- Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26 (U.S. 1966)