Court Opinion

ID: 9460297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:46:40.232873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:33.655727
License: Public Domain

ROSS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part).
I agree that this is a civil contempt proceeding and that no jury trial was required. I do not agree that appellant was denied the due process requirements of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
There is no question that Dr. Boe knew as early as November 21, 1973, that he was going to have to answer the questions posed or show cause why he should not be held in contempt. He was given notice 10 days prior to the December 14, 1973, hearing on whether or not he would be excused from testifying. After that hearing he was given another opportunity to answer the questions and he declined. That afternoon the contempt proceedings were had. To say that Dr. Boe did not have adequate notice to comport with due process requirements under these circumstances *972flies in the face of the realities of the situation.
In my opinion there was a meaningful opportunity to present his defense. The only deficiency that I can perceive at this point is that the affidavits of the government were insufficient on the question of possible electronic surveillance in that they did not pertain to all telephone numbers listed in Boe’s affidavit. It would also have been preferable to have the affidavit executed by the appropriate Department of Justice official rather than an Assistant U. S. Attorney.
I find no merit in the other contentions of Dr. Boe hereinbefore set forth in the majority opinion unless it is proved that there has been electronic surveillance.