188 F.Supp. 86 (E.D.N.Y. 1960), Crim. 60 CR-234, United States v. Carney

Docket NºCrim. 60 CR-234
Citation188 F.Supp. 86
Party NameUnited States v. Carney
Case DateOctober 07, 1960
CourtUnited States District Courts, 2nd Circuit, Eastern District of New York

Page 86

188 F.Supp. 86 (E.D.N.Y. 1960)



Edwin J. CARNEY, Defendant.

Crim. No. 60 CR-234.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

Oct. 7, 1960

Page 87

Cornelius W. Wickersham, Jr., U.S. Atty., Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N.Y., Joseph J. Marcheso, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel, for United States.

Thomas F. Burchill, Jr., New York City, G. Solleder, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.


The defendant moves to dismiss the indictment and to suppress any and all evidence obtained through wire tapping, in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.

In support of this motion, the defendant submits a purely hearsay affidavit of his attorney. The said attorney alleges that the local police, investigating gambling, tapped telephones on the pier located at the foot of 29th Street, Brooklyn; that the defendant, employed as a Customs Agent, was stationed on the pier; that on February 13, 1958, the defendant together with other individuals were arrested on the pier and taken to the office of the District Attorney of Kings County; that the defendant was questioned by local police concerning a liquor conspiracy; that two Government Agents, Kiernan and Hannon, were sent to the District Attorney's office to inquire into Carney's detention; that these Agents were then brought into a room that contained electronic equipment and listened to wire-tap recordings; that upon leaving the room the Agents told Carney they had 'heard plenty'; that subsequently the Federal Agents conducted their own investigation of Carney and that he was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury.

The defendant contends that the evidence obtained against him resulted from clues and leads, if not actual recordings of his voice over the telephone tapped by local police in connection with a gambling investigation. He urges that such evidence so obtained and presented to the Grand Jury was the basis of the indictment.

The Assistant United States Attorney alleges in his affidavit that evidence presented to the Grand Jury consisted of:

1. Official government documents, none of which was 'wire-tap evidence', or derived therefrom.

2. Certain corporate records, none of which was 'wire-tap evidence', or derived therefrom.

3. Testimony of witnesses who gave independent evidence unrelated to the local...

To continue reading

Request your trial