Court Opinion

ID: 2965290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:38:19.726865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:43.589932
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit
                                
                                

No. 98-1463

                       IN RE: GRAND JURY,  

                           Petitioner.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                      Torruella, Chief Judge,
                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     William J. Murphy on brief for petitioner.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, Emily R. Schulman,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Patrick M. Hamilton, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, on brief for appellee.

May 26, 1998

                                
                                

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and
    record, we conclude that, even if the district court might
    better have allowed the witness some additional notice or
    preparation time before the contempt hearing, any such
    procedural deficiency was harmless error.  
              The witness now asserts that, given the opportunity,
    she would claim that her refusal to testify is justified by a
    suspicion of illegal electronic surveillance.  In response, the
    government has presented affidavits sufficient to deny that the
    grand jury inquiry was based on any such illegal activity.  SeeIn re Tse, 748 F.2d 722, 727-28 (1st Cir. 1984); In re Quinn,
    525 F.2d 222, 225 (1st Cir. 1975).  Therefore, we conclude that
    further proceedings to explore such a claim would be futile.
              In spite of the witness's request, we do not have
    authority in these circumstances to direct the location or
    conditions of her confinement.  
              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.