Opinion ID: 347528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: discovery by ehrlichman

Text: 75 Months ahead of trial, Ehrlichman and other defendants filed motions for extensive discovery. Ehrlichman's demand included a large volume of documentary matter in the possession of the Special Prosecutor or one of his investigative arms. It also embraced additional materials, some held by the White House and others by a congressional subcommittee. 76 In his response to the motions the Special Prosecutor agreed to adduce a great deal of what was sought. While disclaiming responsibility for items beyond his control, he also represented that he would search for and try to obtain for the defendants all possibly exculpatory evidence in the custody of executive and congressional bodies. The District Court temporarily withheld action on the motions in order to facilitate voluntary efforts by the parties, leaving open to each defendant the opportunity to contend individually for additional discovery if dissatisfied with the outcome. The arrangement seems to have worked quite well, for the Special Prosecutor's production was massive. 66 77 Ehrlichman, however, continued to press his motion, which the District Court eventually denied. 67 He also procured the issuance of two subpoenas duces tecum, 68 which were promptly quashed. 69 He asserts in this court that he has yet to be afforded complete discovery; his central argument, invoking Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1960), 70 is that the Special Prosecutor was constitutionally obligated to turn over all favorable data either in his hands or in those of any other branch of the Federal Government. In the circumstances shown by the record, we need not pass on a proposition so broad, 71 nor are we persuaded that Ehrlichman was deprived of anything to which he was entitled. 78 Our attention has not been directed to any arguably helpful information possessed by the Special Prosecutor, 72 or any investigative unit under his control, 73 or any other agency allied with the prosecution, 74 which was not made available. Nor does Ehrlichman refer us to any particular item allegedly unproduced other than files generated at the White House 75 and testimony taken by a congressional subcommittee in executive session. 76 As to these materials, we find no cause for reversal. 77 79 Ehrlichman's demand for the White House files fell far short of legal requirements. 78 Criminal Rule 16(b) at that time 79 conditioned discovery of matter of that type upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of (the accused's) defense and that the request is reasonable. 80 Criminal Rule 17(c), 81 which is not a discovery device, 82 confines a subpoena duces tecum to admissible evidence, 83 authorizes the quashing of the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive, 84 and indulges pretrial inspection 85 of subpoenaed papers only upon a showing 80 (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general fishing expedition. 86 81 Ehrlichman's discovery motion, aptly described by the District Court as a sweeping and broadly phrased endeavor to secure a tremendous array of materials, 87 ignored Rule 16(b)'s admonition of reasonableness. 88 His subpoena effort, deserving of like characterization, 89 similarly defied Rule 17(c)'s counterpart. 90 More importantly, in neither instance, so far as the record discloses, did Ehrlichman attempt any demonstration of materiality or relevance of any file item to the exigencies of his defense, 91 nor does he offer any explanation even now. There is no room for any suggestion that this omission is attributable to any informational handicap, 92 for Ehrlichman has long since had ample opportunity to examine the files and to fully acquaint himself with their contents. 93 82 Beyond these considerations, the White House files may well have an extra dimension. Ehrlichman, who is in position to know, makes no claim that the files do not reflect intercommunication and other interaction with President Nixon, 94 and (i)n no case of this kind would a court be required to proceed against the president as an ordinary individual. 95 On the contrary, any court completely in the dark as to what Presidential files contain is duty bound to respect the singularly unique role under Art. II 96 of a President's communications and activities, related to the performance of duties under that Article. 97 For a President's communications and activities encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of any 'ordinary individual,'  98 and (i)t is therefore necessary in the public interest to afford Presidential confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice. 99 Not only, then, were the Criminal Rules governing evidentiary discovery and production to be meticulously observed, 100 but an even higher standard was to be met. The White House files were presumptively privileged 101 and the burden of justifying production was Ehrlichman's. 102 Nothing less than a demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial 103 could carry that burden here. In appropriate cases there may well be a difference in result when the claim of privilege is asserted and the incumbent president interposes no objection. But even so, there is a presumption of privilege which can only be overcome by some demonstration of need. From what we have already said, 104 it is manifest that for information in the files beyond that which Ehrlichman was indulged, the burden was not discharged here. 83 Turning now to Ehrlichman's complaint in reference to congressional materials, we find that his discovery motion was similarly flawed. By no measure could his call for virtually everything related to the oncoming trial 105 be deemed reasonable. 106 Nor, any more than with respect to the White House files, was there any attempt to show materiality of congressional items to the defense. 107 Even as to one category of information eventually designated evidence taken in executive session by the Subcommittee on Intelligence of the House Armed Services Committee the motion encountered these problems and more. The record reveals beyond peradventure that while the Subcommittee originally refused to furnish any of the evidence, at least some including Ehrlichman's own testimony before the Subcommittee 108 was later supplied, 109 and that free access to all of the evidence was conferred ultimately. 110 Ehrlichman does not say that these concessions came too late in the trial to serve his interests 111 nor, if they did, does he indicate in any way how he might possibly have been harmed by the delay. 112 Rather, his complaint, as nearly as we can fathom it, is that at no time was any of the evidence available to him. 113 In light of the disclosures by the record, we cannot accept that position; nor, without elucidation from Ehrlichman of the elements of a different claim, can we say that his right to discovery was in any wise abrogated.