Court Opinion

ID: 9456432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:52:45.893889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:58.606226
License: Public Domain

McCREE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the opinion of the court insofar as it affirms the District Court’s ruling on the legality of the electronic surveillance employed in the investigation of this case. However, the fact, revealed for the first time during the hearing on remand, that Edward Partin participated in the recording of a conversation between Partin and King while they were seated in Partin’s automobile raises a serious question whether the Government knowingly used perjured testimony in the original trial. Partin testified, on a motion to suppress evidence, that Walter Sheridan, the agent in charge of the investigation, had never given him any device or listening instrument to assist him in his work. Transcript at 3006A. At the hearing to determine the legality of the recording of the King-Partin conversation, Sheridan testified that Partin had made his car available for the concealed installation of the instruments and recorder. Testimony by James Neal, the prosecuting attorney, indicates that he was aware of the fact that Partin had cooperated in securing that recording.
The Partin testimony was crucial to the conviction of appellants. Had the Government revealed that Partin perjured himself during the trial, defense counsel could have used that fact to impeach this key Government witness.1 I would remand the case to the District Court for a hearing to determine whether reversal is required by the principles announced in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959).

. Although I am aware of the limited scope of the Supremo Court’s remand order in this case, I do not believe the District Court should thereby be prevented from taking cognizance of the possibility of a departure from basic fairness which might have tainted the outcome of the trial.