*1 1013 A. 5th Cir. v. No. 72-5337. Nix C. United States. Douglas grant Certiorari denied. would certiorari. Valley Bank,
No. 71-6589. National Slade v. County of Super. Dept., Cal., Glendale. Los Angeles. printing Motion for leave to amicus curiae Aid & Defender Legal brief National Assn, granted. Certiorari denied.
las would grant certiorari. Washington
No. 72-41. Board Parish School et al. v. al. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion leave et Moses to dispense respondents’ granted. brief printing Certiorari denied. District Russo al. Byrne, A. 9th
Judge. C. Cir. denied. Certiorari grant certiorari. Brennan Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting. regret that Court does not take this occasion to
lay down some further rules for conduct of criminal electronic involving cases surveillance sensitive area which involves both the Fourth Sixth Amendments. Alderman v. United U. we laid
down governing the district there courts had been electronic surveillance the defendant case where in other surveillance words had his been recorded. Alderman and its made pos- descendants sible the conduct of criminal trials with fairness to all sides and with no orderly disturbance to proceedings.
The present case is one of several that have come across my year desk this involving
defendant in a criminal case but the surveillance of his lawyer. *2 I think,
It is time, that we hold that the confidences lawyer-client relationship the remain inviolate. It is also time prescribed that we set forth the procedures in opinion. an Alderman type of problems The lawyer where the is involved seem me to be as critical as those privacy where the defendant’s under the Fourth Amendment is violated.1 The ruling
1 Wiretapping, “dirty business," Justice Holmes called 438, Olmstead v. United (dissenting), put was by Justice Brandeis in a constitutional frame of reference: “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions pursuit favorable happiness. They recognized to the signifi- spiritual nature, cance of feelings man’s of his and of his intellect. They only part pain, pleasure knew that and satisfactions of life are They to be found in things. sought protect beliefs, Americans in thoughts, their their their emotions and their They conferred, sensations. Government, right to be let comprehensive rights alone—the right most most protect valued right, every unjustifiable civilized men. To intrusion upon privacy individual, Government of the employed, whatever the means must be deemed a violation of the Id., Fourth Amendment.’’ at 478.
And he added:
“Decency, security liberty government alike demand that subjected officials shall be to the same rules of conduct that are government commands to the citizen. laws, existence of government imperilled will be if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our potent, Government is the omnipresent good ill, teacher. For or for it teaches the people by whole ex- ample. contagious. Crime is If becomes law- breaker, contempt it breeds law; every it invites man to become a law himself; anarchy. unto it invites To declare that in the ad- ministration of justifies the criminal law the end the means —to de- clare that the Government commit crimes in order to secure private conviction of a bring criminal —would terrible retribution. Against pernicious doctrine this resolutely Court should set its Id., face.” at 485. stay when granted this last summer which made premise teaching based on the this fully "to a case of Alderman rights imperiled. defendant were United States v. United States District We held in Court, 407 that electronic of in permissible ternal measures was on the basis on Attorney General, only judicial an order of search warrants. We reserved decision “with Id., powers activities their agents.” at 322. When the last summer argument was held order, presentation distinguished oral case on the that it involved “domestic” sur *3 present “foreign” veillance while one involved sur prosecution veillance. The seemed reluctant enlarge distinction, that me to opinion led note in the I filed granting may we dealing only with a matter of The prosecution semantics. never sub in mitted to me camera I logs question. have now seen them, it appears that the electronic sur veillance of a telephone national and foreign intercepted conversations this case had noth ing to do “with foreign powers to activities of or their agents,” question we the pre reserved in vious Ibid. case. understand it, As the conversa tion inquiry by was an of one the counsel concerning wholly personal social and commercial It matters. is not conceivable to me that this conversation is in “foreign” field in the sense the word is used in the statutes volved in United States District Court case. No activity any is even “agent” suggested. We should therefore take the case resolve immunity what Branch has in setting up Executive of per schemes vasive foreign nationals that is unrelated to espionage. utterly is however, the conversation is, said How can we present case.
irrelevant to the issues for the building a case Only one immersed know? can know whether a defense prosecution constructing “link” would be a innocuous-appearing conversation an necessary which in time would be chain of evidence for the defense. or convenient either as held in Alderman why strongly is feel we States, supra, question v. United of relevance must adversary hearing judge.2 for before be submitted suspect here, dispute if that had been done delayed that has this trial for some months would have A quickly grave injustice may may been resolved. today. My ride on the denial of certiorari concern is 2In Alderman v. United States we read: major system proceedings aspect are a our justice. justice superiority attaining Their as a means for given cases, in a is such nowhere more evident than those bar, basis as the ones at where an issue must be decided on the large consideration of the volume factual after many among interrelationships exist the facts and subtle by adversary inquiry need reflected these records. As the for adjudica- presented complexity increased the issues parte procedures tion, consequent inadequacy of ex resolution, displacement of well-in- means for their accurate necessarily advocacy justifiable. becomes less *4 error, magically proceedings will eliminate all not substantially by guarding against they but will reduce its incidence judge, through possibility lack of or un the trial time suggested familiarity contained in and information scrutiny provide the which the Fourth will be unable to exclusionary prospect rule demands. that the Amendment prosecu compel will dismiss some of disclosure Government to third-party interests. But to national tions deference coneededly faces to this is choice admits, illegally and it which it has obtained find, arguably judge relevant to evidence S., at 183-184. the defendant.” offered of the law. use the administration largest word law sense—where spirit within required the defense is live well as keep and letter rules designed of the constitutional no people Government off backs of take hysteria political pressures. shortcuts of public because pre- question concerning applicability procedures protection laid out Alderman to the singularly ap- claims makes this case a propriate occasion for down the laying will federal trials. County Rao v. Board of Commissioners Sup.
(Pierce County) Ct. Wash. Motion to al. petition with printing granted. Certiorari de- nied.
No. 72-5247. Grubb Crim. Oklahoma. Okla. Certiorari denied. with whom Brennan,
las Marshall concur, dissenting. Petitioner and Lynette Murphy lived hus together as band and wife from Collinsville, Septem Oklahoma, ber through end January 1971. After leav Lynette ing petitioner, went to live with her sister and brother-in-law, Larry Lana and Sanders, Collinsville. At approximately p.8 on February petitioner m. 2, 1971, went to the Sanders' displayed a residence, gun, and Gary another Hany, occupant, he intended Lynette to take with him. After a wait approximately 45 minutes, Lynette, Lana, Larry arrived at residence. Lynette Petitioner told if she refused to go with him he would kill them Lynette all. became up” “kind of shook and agreed to go. Petitioner then