Opinion ID: 341470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ehrlichman's Discovery Rights

Text: 76 Ehrlichman claims he was improperly denied his rights under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to the production of all evidence material to the preparation of his defense and, under Brady v. Maryland, 94 to all evidence favorable to an accused. The Special Prosecutor asserts that he voluntarily produced all documents in his possession which were even remotely relevant to the issues to be tried. Further, he contacted all governmental departments, including the White House, which might be expected to have material possibly exculpatory of Ehrlichman or his co-defendants. These departments reported the results of their searches in affidavits. On appeal Ehrlichman apparently does not question the accuracy of these affidavits or their fulfillment of the prosecution's obligation to disclose relevant information to the defense, 95 with the exception of the affidavit filed by J. Fred Buzhardt on behalf of the White House. As to the Buzhardt affidavit, however, Ehrlichman failed to present any evidence before the District Court to support his argument here that Buzhardt's review generally was inadequate or his representations inaccurate. 96 Nor has he presented any such evidence to us. Ehrlichman's broad challenge to the validity of Buzhardt's inspection of White House files for materials relevant to Ehrlichman's defense must fail. 77 We are left with the arguments made by Ehrlichman with respect to specific materials held by the White House which he desired produced. 97 The first of these were Ehrlichman's notes recording private Presidential conversations and meetings. As part of his overall review referred to above, Buzhardt examined those notes, found none bearing on the guilt or innocence of Ehrlichman or his co-defendants, but turned over Xerox copies of those that seemed conceivably relevant. Moreover, Ehrlichman was given personal access to all the notes. In response to the trial judge's repeated request that Ehrlichman specify which notes of individual conversations he considered had been improperly withheld, Ehrlichman on 21 June 1974 filed a motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for the notes of ten different conversations. An accompanying memorandum detailed Ehrlichman's reasons for considering those particular notes material to his defense. In response to that motion the White House turned over the requested notes to the trial judge for in camera inspection. Also, on 24 June the Special Prosecutor filed a lengthy memorandum arguing the irrelevancy of each of the conversations sought to the issues at trial. 98 With the actual notes before him, Judge Gesell found the Special Prosecutor's position persuasive and quashed the subpoena. We have reviewed these notes as well and find ourselves in complete accord with the trial judge's determination. With the exception of the Leaks file, discussed below, Ehrlichman identifies on appeal no other specific documents or notes which were wrongfully denied him. 78 Nevertheless, Ehrlichman argues, first, that the District Court should have ordered the White House to submit to it all his notes of Presidential conversations and, apparently, all other White House material Ehrlichman requested for in camera inspection to determine their relevance. Even were this a case not involving presumptively privileged Presidential files, 99 Ehrlichman's failure to argue with specificity the materiality and reasonableness of his discovery request would render his position untenable. 100 In the face of the requirement for a demonstrated specific need for the evidence or a showing that the Presidential material was 'essential to the justice of the (pending criminal) case,'  101 we must reject his position. 79 Second, Ehrlichman contends he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the President permitted Ehrlichman, but not his attorney, to examine his notes. The fact that Ehrlichman was given access to these files which recorded Presidential conversations apparently unrelated to the Fielding break-in could not vest a right of access in his attorney, who was not privy to the conversations. The order did not prevent Ehrlichman from leaving the room where the files were located at any time to inform his attorney in detail of the materials he had located. Ehrlichman does not contend that his attorney would have been prevented from framing subpoenas duces tecum for relevant material so located. In sum, the District Court committed no error with respect to its handling of the discovery of Ehrlichman's notes. 80 The only evidence Ehrlichman specifically alleges to be exculpatory and wrongfully withheld is the so-called Leaks file. On 26 March 1973, a briefcase filled with files on the Pentagon Papers investigation, which had been in the possession of David Young, was delivered to Ehrlichman's office. Before that delivery, Young photocopied those documents which implicated Ehrlichman in the Fielding break-in. Young testified at trial that Ehrlichman later told him he had removed certain of the documents which were most incriminating before returning the files to Young, and that Young verified this fact when reviewing the files. Ehrlichman testified that he had not removed those memoranda. Eventually, the documents wound up in a file marked Leaks, in a box marked Ehrlichman, in the White House. 81 Ehrlichman contended at trial that production of the file was necessary to show he was involved in legitimate efforts to tighten security and prevent leaks within the government. The President's attorney, James St. Clair, indicated in a hearing on the matter that the file contained numerous classified documents not relating to Dr. Fielding or David Ellsberg. He indicated, however, that he thought the President would permit disclosure of specific documents from the file if such a request were made. Ehrlichman never submitted such a request nor showed why production of the entire file was necessary to his defense. 82 On appeal, however, for the first time Ehrlichman argues that production of the file folder was important to show that the designation Leaks on the folder was not in his handwriting and the file had been created by someone else. 102 Not only is this theory produced at much too late a date, but it is extremely doubtful that such evidence could have influenced the jury's verdict. We find therefore, that Ehrlichman has not show sufficient actual prejudice to his case to justify reversal of his conviction for the District Court's refusal to order the production of the Leaks file. 83