Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19770330_0040388.C02.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-06-22 22:33:22
Document Index: 454626740

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 3504', '§ 3504', '§ 3504', '§ 401', '§ 2515']

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,v.MICHAEL KAZUO YANAGITA AND MARC CHOYEI KONDO, APPELLEES
Appeal by the United States of a judgment by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, John F. Dooling, Jr., Judge, dismissing informations filed against appellees for criminal contempt in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 401 for refusing to testify in a criminal trial after being granted use immunity, on the ground that the government's response to appellees' claims of illegal electronic surveillance pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3504 was inadequate. The government contends that its response was sufficient under the circumstances. Appellees cross-appeal on the grounds that their refusal to testify was justified under the Fifth Amendment because of their fear of being prosecuted by the Japanese government. Reversed and remanded.
This appeal concerns the timeliness of claims by witnesses under 18 U.S.C. § 3504*fn1 that their examination was to be based upon the products of unlawful surveillance and the scope of the government's duty under that statute to "affirm or deny" the existence of illegal wiretapping in response to requests first made on the day the witnesses were required by subpoena to appear and testify in a criminal trial. We hold that under the circumstances of this case their requests were untimely and that in any event the affidavit of an Assistant United States Attorney based on his own knowledge and on representations by the chief investigative unit involved in the case and a statement by the Assistant United States Attorney conducting the examination were sufficient to satisfy § 3504. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the contempt informations filed against the witnesses.
On June 24, 1976, appellees were charged with criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 for refusing to obey the court's order to testify, and the case was assigned to Judge John F. Dooling, Jr. On August 17, 1976, Judge Dooling, in a written opinion reported at 418 F. Supp. 214, denied appellees' Fifth Amendment claims but dismissed the contempt informations against them on the ground that the orders to testify were based upon insufficient assurances by the government that illicit surveillance had not been employed. The government took this appeal from Judge Dooling's order.
In Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 33 L. Ed. 2d 179, 92 S. Ct. 2357 (1972), the Supreme Court held that as a defense to a contempt charge a grand jury witness may assert that his testimony would have been inadmissible in the original proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2515, which provides that:
"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 ...