Opinion ID: 340081
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pretrial Publicity Resulting from Governmental Disclosures.

Text: 58 Appellants make two contentions about pretrial publicity. First, they contend that the government improperly disclosed to the press information gathered by wire interceptions. Second, they contend that the volume of pretrial publicity made it impossible for them to receive a fair trial. 59
60 Appellants strenuously contended both in the district court and in briefs and argument on appeal that the government made improper pretrial disclosures of critical information to the press. They urge that pretrial newspaper articles contained detailed recitals of wire interceptions, which could only have been furnished by the government. The newspaper article principally relied upon to support this contention indicates on its face that its source was a 26-page affidavit (by) an agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Moreover, in their amended motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct, appellants specifically argued that it was improper for the government to use information from wire interceptions in an affidavit for a search warrant, and then place that affidavit in the custody of a court clerk, without first making provision for its protection from disclosure as required by the plain mandate of the Federal Law. 61 Thus we understand the gist of appellants' argument to be that the government had a duty to prevent unauthorized disclosures of their intercepted communications, and that the government's failure to prevent disclosure of the information recited in the affidavit requires the dismissal of the charges against them. Appellants rely upon 18 U.S.C. § 2517, which lists situations in which (a)ny investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire or oral communication may disclose or use the information. Subsection (1) permits disclosure to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent necessary for the performance of both officers' official duties. Subsection (2) provides generally that intercepted information and communications may be disclosed to the extent . . . appropriate to the officer's official duties. And subsection (3) permits disclosure where the officer is giving testimony under oath in a state or federal criminal or grand jury proceeding. 5 62 Appellants contend that any disclosure not explicitly authorized by § 2517 is illegal, and they argue that § 2517 did not authorize either investigative or court personnel to disclose the contents of their intercepted communications to the press. Accordingly, they urge that the disclosure to the newspapers was illegal and that the only appropriate remedy is the dismissal of the indictments. 63 The government argues that subsection (2) authorized government agents to disclose the contents of intercepted communications in an affidavit for a search warrant. Then F.R.Crim.P. 41(g) required the magistrate before whom the warrant was returned to file the warrant and all other papers in connection therewith with the clerk of the district court, where they became a matter of public record. The government argues that dismissal of the charges against appellants is not warranted merely because of the government's failure to take extraordinary measures to seek restriction of access to the court files, especially when appellants made no request for such a restriction of access. The government notes that the wiretap statutes provide three remedies suppression, 6 civil damages, 7 and criminal penalties. 8 The remedies for unlawful disclosure of intercepted communications are civil damages and criminal penalties. The detailed provisions of the Act contain no provision for the dismissal of pending criminal charges. 64 We agree with the government that appellants have failed to demonstrate any circumstances that warrant dismissal of the charges against them. However, in view of the congressional intention to protect individual privacy, it would be better practice for the government to request, as a matter of course, that the district court restrict access to documents filed with the court that contain intercepted communications. 65
66 Appellants also contend that the pretrial publicity about their cases was so pervasive and inflammatory that they could not receive a fair trial. However, appellants were tried not by a jury, but by experienced district judges. In these circumstances appellants must show that the pretrial publicity resulted in some actual prejudice, and they have failed to do so. Moreover, if appellants believed that one or both of the district judges could not try them impartially, the remedy was to seek disqualification. 28 U.S.C. § 144. 67