Opinion ID: 1162526
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: allegations of investigatory misconduct

Text: In the course of its investigation into the allegations that respondent and LaRue conducted illegal electronic surveillance, the Las Vegas federal grand jury subpoenaed Charles Lee in April of 1980. [33] Lee was then employed by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department as a homicide investigator and polygraph operator. His testimony before the grand jury concerned a polygraph examination he had administered to respondent in 1977. Lee told the grand jury that, in his expert opinion, respondent had truthfully denied any participation in activities involving the illegal electronic surveillance into which the grand jury was inquiring. [34] In an affidavit submitted to the federal court, Lee averred that following his appearance before the grand jury, he was summoned to the office of his superior, Sheriff John McCarthy. McCarthy informed Lee that he had been visited by two Federal Strike Force agents sent by [FBI, Special-Agent-In-Charge Joseph] Yablonsky. According to Lee, McCarthy further stated that as a result of Lee's exculpatory grand jury testimony, Yablonsky considered Lee to be an uncooperative witness and that Yablonsky was going to come down on [Lee] like a ton of bricks. [35] Lee's attorney, Michael Stuhff, also has attested to the fact that information subsequently released to Lee pursuant to requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, confirms that Lee was targeted [for investigation] by Yablonsky because of Lee's refusal to join in or cooperate with Yablonsky's vendetta against Judge Harry E. Claiborne. [36] Lee and his attorney maintain that, as a result of Lee's testimony before the grand jury, and at the direction of Yablonsky, Lee was demoted and reassigned to a desk job answering telephones, and was further subjected to an intensive three-year investigation. The investigation into Lee's activities involved extensive covert and electronic surveillance of Lee by the FBI. Ultimately, however, the investigation was terminated having disclosed no wrongdoing upon which criminal charges could be based. [37] It can thus be inferred from the record that Lee may have suffered extensive harassment and intimidation solely because he provided exculpatory testimony to the grand jury investigating respondent. Similarly, the grand jury investigation into the allegations that LaRue conducted illegal electronic surveillance at respondent's direction failed to result in any indictment against respondent. LaRue, however, was formally charged with six counts of installing illegal listening devices. [38] These charges were unrelated to the previous allegations involving respondent. In an affidavit, LaRue has attested that after his indictment, an FBI agent advised him to give up Judge Claiborne. [39] Further, LaRue has averred: The agent advised me that if I would do that, all federal charges (the indictment against me) would be dropped. I told him to give up Judge Claiborne would be false since I didn't know a single thing illegal or unlawful that Judge Claiborne had ever done. The message was clear to me I could rid myself of all the expense, embarrassment, intimidation and sorrow that I had suffered and was about to suffer simply by lying against Judge Claiborne. This I pointedly refused to do and went to trial. I went through the anguish of defending myself against these false charges in Reno Federal Court. The Government removed the trial to Reno, Nevada, 500 miles from my home, which added additional financial burden in travel expenses for myself, my attorney and witnesses. After a week-long trial I was acquitted. This trial cost me $35,000 in attorney fees alone, to say nothing of the expense of taking my witnesses all across the State to the trial. I was wrongfully indicted for the sole purpose of giving the FBI leverage to make a deal with me. The sole purpose and object of my indictment was to get Judge Claiborne. He was their target, not me. [40] Thus, the record reveals some factual basis for concluding that despite a lack of significant evidence of any wrongdoing, LaRue suffered harsh and retributive treatment as a result of his inability to provide inculpatory evidence against respondent. Respondent contends that additional questions concerning the propriety of his pre-indictment investigation are raised by a curious event that took place on March 19, 1981. On that date, respondent opened his monthly American Express bill and found that an American Express statement addressed to Nevada State District Judge Thomas O'Donnell was included along with respondent's. On April 9, 1981, respondent wrote to the American Express Company requesting an explanation and observed: In the envelope containing my last billing was also the bill for Judge Thomas J. O'Donnell. It would not be surprising that someone's bill was also included with mine but our curiosity is more than aroused in view of the fact that Judge O'Donnell is my closest and best friend. For his bill to be included with mine is a very unusual circumstance. If I were of a suspicious nature, I might suspect that someone is monitoring our accounts and replaced both of them in the same envelope by mistake. If this is true, then both Judge O'Donnell and I desire to pursue it further. [41] Thereafter, the American Express Company replied that it could not explain the mix-up. [42] Prior to his first criminal trial, respondent unsuccessfully moved the federal district court to dismiss the charges against him on the grounds of selective prosecution and governmental abuse. [43] Respondent attached an affidavit of Judge O'Donnell to that motion wherein Judge O'Donnell stated that he had at one time informed Judge Claiborne that Gus Gallo, a defendant convicted on gambling tax charges, was a promising candidate for probation. [44] Judge O'Donnell further attested that he subsequently obtained material indicating that the FBI had investigated respondent in connection with the sentence that respondent ultimately imposed upon Gallo. [45] On the basis of these and other facts, respondent sought an evidentiary hearing to explore the logical inference that because the strike force and the FBI were dissatisfied with the sentence imposed upon Gallo, they instituted an investigation in which mail belonging to respondent and Judge O'Donnell was illegally intercepted resulting in the mix-up of their March, 1981 American Express statements. [46] Again, however, respondent was denied an opportunity fully to explore these events in evidentiary hearings before the federal district court or before the United States Senate. [47] Nonetheless, for the purposes of these proceedings, and in our view, these factual allegations are sufficiently supported to raise serious questions about the propriety of tactics employed in the pursuit of the indictment and prosecution of respondent.