Document: 385 U.S. 26 87 S.Ct. 190 17 L.Ed.2d Fred B. BLACKv.UNITED STATES. No. 1029, October Term, 1965. Decided Nov. 7, 1966. Hans A. Nathan, Warren E. McGee and Bert Rand, for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, the United States. PER CURIAM. 1 In Davis v. States, 927, 284, 210, we today denied petition certiorari. The sole question raised there (but not passed upon by Court of Appeals because necessary to its disposition) involved petitioners' claim that conferences between petitioners their counsel were surreptitiously overheard intercepted law enforcement officials through concealed monitorial devices built into jail where being held federal authorities. did deny existence but said no recordings conversations in question. He pointed out since case has been remanded a new trial on other grounds, full exploration this could be made retrial. light these representations certiorari so might fully explored at trial, as suggested General. 2 instant case, Black rehearing now raises similar while supra, is controlling, relation obvious. advised voluntarily May 24, 1966, after had denied, 384 86 1444, 16 530, before an application filed, agents Federal Bureau Investigation, matter unrelated February 1963, installed listening device petitioner's hotel suite Washington, D.C. monitored taped during period offense was investigated beginning some two months continuing until about one month evidence presented Grand Jury. During period, 'the monitoring agents,' 'overheard, among conversations, exchanges petitioner attorney who then representing him (Black)' case. supplemental memorandum filed July 13, General, response inquiry Court, stated such interceptions erased from tapes notes summarizing sometimes quoting available, reports memoranda concerning same made. 'Neither nor memoranda,' he reported, 'were seen attorneys Tax Division responsible prosecution of' January 1964, when preparing they included material transmitted them; examined retained them April 15, began; never realized 21, any his transcriptions. 3 further 'Tax found nothing F.B.I. or which considered relevant tax evasion case.' suggests judgment vacated District 'relevant materials would produced court determine, adversary hearing, whether conviction should stand.' We have used technique criminal cases, States Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 233, 78 245, 234. However, use automatic. Indeed, Remmer 347 227, 74 450, 98 L.Ed. 654, it necessary, despite hearing subsequently order merits, 350 377, 76 425, 100 435. There are complicating factors here present Remmer. judge informed alleged jury tampering, neither judge, knew action agents. Moreover, advises know time view facts appears justice requires afford opportunity protect himself otherwise inadmissible. 4 This disposed vacate convictions without adequate justification, but, under circumstances believe must held. will give parties permit decide questions involved. It also removal doubt Black's receiving fair with consideration given reported us 5 therefore granted, denying vacated, cause trial. 6 Mr. Justice WHITE FORTAS took part decision 7 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. 8 denial Fifth Circuit, 357 F.2d 438, already ordered grounds wholly eavesdropping explore contentions Government interfered constitutionally protected right bears solid to, still less furnishes justification for, what done A brief statement disposition reveal summarily vacating final ordering completely acted prematurely. 9 convicted income violations. His affirmed Columbia Circuit November 10, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 347, 353 885. Certiorari 2, 530. Before here, bringing Court's attention fact course investigation 'bugged' Investigation electronically recorded. consequence investigation, instituted following discovery occurrence, able represent none information procured utilized aforesaid prosecution. memorandum, compliance request represented late August 1965 Criminal Department learned Division, prosecution, overheard. 10 recognizes entitled matter, end findings episode may bear validity conviction. responds inadequate contends should, more, forthwith dismissal indictment 11 Without anything more than both sides, orders totally spite disclosure commendably knowledge prosecuting improperly obtained. I agree, course, full-scale development facts, can see valid reason why unimpeached stage. Davis, appropriate retrial original fallen grounds. however, vehicle sorting issue determined occurrence vitiated basis exists. puts cart horse. orderly procedure remand issues See 654; Unless resolved legal effect assessed favorably petitioner, remain undisturbed. 12 only think justifying governmental activity kind automatically vitiates, least require occurring span activity. But cannot even briefing argument, intends make sweeping innovation today's peremptory

Category: 0