Opinion ID: 352547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the prosecutor use illegal wiretap evidence?

Text: 55 We answer this question in the negative. Appellants argued this point in connection with their claims of improper coercion of their wiretap witnesses. Our foregoing discussion of their testimony and the prosecutor's reply thereto is sufficient to support the trial court's finding that appellants' contentions in this regard should be denied. 56 III. DID THE TRIAL JUDGE ATTEMPT TO COERCE ATTORNEY LEROY NESBITT? 57 Attorneys Nesbitt and Chaikin represented appellants after the jury returned its verdict on June 16, 1970. They are listed in the docket entries as appearing on June 30, 1970 in support of appellants' Motion for a New Trial and on October 15, 1970 at sentencing when the trial attorneys were granted leave to withdraw. The actual notices of appeal in all three cases were dated October 15, 1970 and were filed by Leroy Nesbitt and Donald J. Chaikin (R. 66, 67, 68). The charge that the judge attempted to coerce Mr. Nesbitt in some way was made in a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by Mr. Louis Vecchiarello. It alleged: 58 The trial Judge on July 17, 1970, and before the defendant was sentenced (October 15, 1970) attempted to obstruct defendant's right to counsel of his own choosing when he informed one Leroy Nesbitt not to represent defendant. The Judge related to Mr. Nesbitt that defendant had no funds to pay counsel fees and further that if Mr. Nesbitt persisted in representing the defendant, then he, the trial Judge, would remove his political backing of Mr. Nesbitt for a judgeship in the District of Columbia. 59 (Tr. 168). Later in briefs filed in this court in case Nos. 24,723, 24,724 and 24,725, United States v. Maturo, Louis P. Vecchiarello, et al., with Messrs. Nesbitt and Chaikin as counsel of record, the following appears: 60 The trial Judge sought to dissuade co-counsel from representing the appellants with the statements that no future political backing would be accorded counsel and that he would not be paid by the defendants. (See the minutes.) 61 (Tr. 169, Dfts. Ex. 1, p. 4). The co-counsel referred to was stated to be Leroy Nesbitt and the statement of the judge was allegedly made in the presence of Messrs. Nesbitt, Chaikin, and the United States Attorneys, Messrs. Gene Anderson and (possibly) Seymour Glanzer. 62 At the remand hearing, the judge and Mr. Glanzer denied that any such statement was made (Tr. 164-165, 158, 160-161). The gist of appellants' statements as to the source of this allegation was that it came from their attorneys Nesbitt and Chaikin (Tr. 172-177, 179-182, 184-187). The testimony of Louis Vecchiarello (Tr. 184-187) is very strong that Nesbitt and Chaikin were the source to them of the allegation. 63 Yet, despite the foregoing testimony, and the appearance of the charge in the pleadings and brief, both Nesbitt and Chaikin disclaim that such threats ever occurred and that they were responsible therefor. Nesbitt testified that he and Chaikin prepared the brief. (Tr. 21-22). As to the charge against the trial judge, Nesbitt testified, No, I did not (make such a statement). (Tr. 22). He did not recall that . . . in a conference with (the) Judge . . . that he in any way suggested that you should not proceed representing the defendants here . . . it did not happen . . . I have never been intimidated by any judge in any court, and have never been asked by any judge to withdraw from a case. (Tr. 25). Chaikin testified: I specifically don't remember if I prepared this statement of facts (alleging the threat by the judge) (Tr. 12). . . . I do not recall (such statement) (Tr. 13). I have no independent recollection of this (statement) (Tr. 14). That's correct . . . (I) have no recollection of any threats or intimidation (Tr. 16). This was repeated at Tr. 19 in response to a question by the presiding judge. 64 It thus appears that no person substantiates the charge that the statement was ever actually made, and all those present at the alleged time deny that it was made. 3 There is thus no basis to support this charge. Nevertheless, Vecchiarello argued to the hearing judge that there was nothing to preclude that such a thing did or did not happen (Tr. 208). In the absence of any supporting evidence, we find to the contrary. 4 65