Court Opinion

ID: 9458035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:41:10.285258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:36.926528
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur with the result reached, but feel impelled to state separately that I consider this a close case. My conclusion in this regard is predicated primarily on three considerations: (1) the nature of the Government’s affidavit, with its reliance on hearsay, and its failure specifically to foreclose the possibility that some agency had employed electronic surveillance or that the prosecutor might have the' benefits of such surveillance; (2) the doubt created by the Government’s affidavits in connection with Mary Sandel; and (3) the fact that the trial court had indicated that there was to be a hearing, but that the witness’ counsel was apparently confused by the written notice which stated that there would be an argument — apparently before such hearing.1
Also, I agree with the conclusion reached with regard to the immunity ap*474plication because the United States Attorney’s affidavit asserted that the Attorney General had approved it, and there is no allegation by the petitioner that he did not do so. In the context of this case, therefore, I believe there is no need to construe Section 2514.

. “It is ordered that Tuesday, February 1, 1972, ... be set as the time for argument on the Petition to Suppress filed in this matter on January 24, 1972. . ” [Emphasis added].