Court Opinion

ID: 2963908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:15.175004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:34.323069
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          January 11, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2338

         

                                        IN RE:

                                     GRAND JURY.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Peter J. Stelzer on brief for appellant.
            ________________
            Donald K.  Stern, United  States Attorney,  and Jeffrey  Auerhahn,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Appellant grand jury witness  appeals
                      __________

            the district court order holding him in contempt for refusing

            to   answer   questions   before   a   grand   jury.      The

            witness/contemnor refused  to answer  on the ground  that the

            question  violated his  rights under  the  fourth amendment.1

            The  government  filed  a   petition  for  contempt  and  the

            witness/contemnor responded  by filing a motion,  pursuant to

            18 U.S.C.   3504, seeking that the government "affirm or deny

            the existence  of any  and all electronic  surveillance which

            may be used as a basis, direct or indirect, for any questions

            to  be  put  to  the  witness."    After  hearing  in  camera
                                                               __  ______

            submissions  from   the  special  agent  in   charge  of  the

            investigation concerning the source of the questions directed

            to  the  witness, the  court held  the  witness had  no "just

            cause" for  refusing to comply  with the  immunity order  and

            held  him in  contempt.   The witness/contemnor  appeals this

            contempt order.2  We affirm.

                 A  grand jury  witness  who refuses  to testify  without

            "just cause"  may be  held in  civil contempt.   18 U.S.C.   

            1826(a).   However, a showing that the questions addressed to

            the  witness were  based on  illegal electronic  surveillance

                                
            ____________________

            1.   This  court has  held that  the rights  of a  grand jury
            witness  to  refuse  to  answer questions  based  on  illegal
            surveillance "depend exclusively on [18 U.S.C.   3504]."   In
                                                                       __
            re Mintzer, 511 F.2d 471, 473 (1st Cir. 1974).
            __________

            2.   This court granted  the witness/contemnor's motion to be
            released pending disposition of this appeal.

            constitutes "just cause" for refusal to testify and precludes

            a finding of contempt.  Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41
                                    _______    _____________

            (1972);  In  re  Doe, 988  F.2d  211,  213  (1st Cir.  1992).
                     ___________

            "[U]pon  a  claim  by  a  party  aggrieved  that  evidence is

            inadmissible because  it is  [derived from an  illegal act],"

            the government  must "affirm or  deny the  occurrence of  the

            alleged unlawful act."   18 U.S.C.    3504; In re Grand  Jury
                                                        _________________

            Proceedings,  786 F.2d 3,  7 (1st Cir.  1986) (citing cases).
            ___________

            The  witness/contemnor contends that  the government  in this

            case  failed  to  meet  its  burden   of  responding  to  the

            allegation.   Alternatively, he  asserts  the district  court

            erred  in hearing  testimony concerning  the  surveillance in
                                                                       __

            camera.
            ______

                 A "purely  conclusory denial"  that an  alleged unlawful

            act occurred  is not an adequate response  to a   3504 claim.

            In re Hodges, 524 F.2d 568, 570 (1st Cir. 1975).  Rather, the
            ____________

            government  must  show  "that  those  responding  were  in  a

            position,  by   first  hand-knowledge  or   through  inquiry,

            reasonably  to ascertain  whether  or  not  relevant  illegal

            activities took place."  In re Quinn, 525  F.2d 222, 225 (1st
                                     ___________

            Cir. 1975).  Moreover, an adequate response "require[s] . . .

            that those  conducting the grand jury  proceeding affirm that

            they have  no knowledge of  and have not in  any way employed

            other  taps [than  those  revealed] in  formulating lines  of

            inquiry to be posed to the witness."  In re Mintzer, 511 F.2d
                                                  _____________

                                         -3-

            471, 472 n.2 (1st Cir. 1974).  In other words, in an adequate

            response  the government  provides  the court  access to  the

            relevant   materials  supporting   all  wiretaps   which  the

            government had or used concerning the witness.  Id. at 473.  
                                                            ___

                 In  response  to  the      3504  claim,  the  government

            presented  the sworn testimony of the case agent in charge of

            the investigation that all the information obtained about the

            witness/contemnor   which   was   derived   from   electronic

            surveillance  came from  surveillance  pursuant to  a warrant

            already revealed to  the district court.  The  district court

            itself  affirmed  that it  had  previously  held the  warrant

            lawful.   The agent also  swore that he  had been responsible

            for  all communications  between  the  investigators and  the

            prosecutor in this  case.  The  agent was thus in  a position

            reasonably  to ascertain whether  any illegal  activities had

            taken  place in  the investigation.   A  subsequent affidavit

            requested  by this  court, see  Grand Jury v.  Gassiraro, 918
                                       ___  __________     _________

            F.2d  1013,  1016  (1st  Cir.  1990), and  submitted  by  the

            attorney  in charge  of the  investigation,  see id.  at 1015
                                                         ___ __

            (finding  an affirmance  by  the  attorney investigating  and

            formulating  the  questions   to  the  witness   particularly

            significant) (citing cases), "put to rest any lingering doubt

            we had  about the adequacy of [the] response," In re Tse, 748
                                                           _________

            F.2d 722, 728 (1st Cir. 1984) (footnote omitted). 

                                         -4-

                 Nor  do we find any error in the district court decision

            to  hear  sworn  testimony  concerning  the  surveillance  in
                                                                       __

            camera.     The  district   court  has  wide   discretion  in
            ______

            determining whether  or  not  to  withhold  the  government's

            submissions concerning  other surveillance from a witness who

            raises a    3504 claim,  In re Doe, 988  F.2d at 214 n.3, and
                                     _________

            similar  in camera  submissions  have been  approved by  this
                     __ ______

            court, see, e.g., id.; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 786 F.2d
                   ___  ___   __   ____________________________

            at 7.  Having reviewed  the submissions, we find no abuse  of

            discretion in this case.

                 The contempt order is affirmed.
                                       ________

                                         -5-