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

Heading: The Witness Vance.

Text: 44 The claims with respect to Vance are typical of the remaining claims. Vance was a park police officer in Maryland whose signature appears on an affidavit prepared by appellants' attorneys in their attempts to support appellants' contention that there had been improper wiretapping of their office telephone. Vance, a patient of appellants', while using the office telephone, thought he heard a chime and so informed appellants. Later, the attorneys for the defendants in the affidavit included a statement whereby Vance represented that he was generally familiar with techniques and methods of telephone wiretapping. (Tr. 50). This was obviously intended to add strength to Vance's wholly speculative assertion that appellant's telephone line was tapped. However, at the hearing, Vance testified that such was not a true statement and that he had pointed . . . out to the Notary Public that it wasn't true. He signed the affidavit, he said, because he thought the main thing . . . was that I heard the chimes. (Tr. 50). On cross-examination of Vance by Anthony Vecchiarello acting pro se, the following testimony was adduced: 45 (Vance) The time I signed that I pointed out the discrepancies to the Notary Public. At that time I thought that he would make note or change whatever I pointed out to him. I did not know about legal documents, the way they are set up now and exact wording had to be in the affidavit, so therefore, half of that affidavit which your (Anthony Vecchiarello's) attorneys made up is untrue. 46 THE COURT: Who actually made up this affidavit? 47 THE WITNESS: Dr. Maturo and Vecchiarello's attorneys, they gave it to me to sign.THE COURT: In other words, they made the affidavit and just gave it to you to sign, and you told them that it was not correct? 48 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 49 (Tr. 59-60). So the truth of the matter was that Vance was not (as) . . . familiar with wiretapping techniques as the affidavit had represented. The actions of the U.S. Attorney when he discussed Vance's affidavit with him, questioned it, took Vance before the Grand Jury, and told (him) to tell the truth, were perfectly legitimate and were not improper threats or coercion. Vance admitted he was not  as qualified as (he had) stated. (Tr. 60). And his qualifications in that respect went to the very heart of his testimony. 50 Nevertheless, in the face of this, Anthony Vecchiarello, a disbarred attorney, who handled the remand pro se and for appellants, persists in arguing that the United States Attorney in an unauthorized and illegal manner influenced Vance to withdraw and retract or recant the affidavit (Tr. 195-196). We disagree. We find that the U.S. Attorney acted in an authorized and proper method. 51