Kolod v. United States, 133
| Decision Date | 29 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 133,133 |
| Citation | 88 S.Ct. 752,19 L.Ed.2d 962,390 U.S. 136 |
| Parties | Ruby KOLOD et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Edward Bennett Williams, Harold Ungar and W. H. Erickson, for petitioners.
Solicitor General Griswold, former Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Sidney M. Glazer, for the United States.
The petition for rehearing is granted and the order denying petitioners' petition for the writ of certiorari, 389 U.S. 834, 88 S.Ct. 40, 19 L.Ed.2d 95, is set aside. The petition for rehearing alleges that petitioners' counsel was informed after the petition for the writ of certiorari was filed that petitioner Alderisio's conversations were monitored through electronic surveillance conducted by a government agency at Alderisio's place of business in Chicago. The Court invited the Solicitor General to respond to the petition for rehearing. 389 U.S. 966, 88 S.Ct. 459, 19 L.Ed.2d 457. The Solicitor General responded that the petition should be denied because the case did not come within '* * * the policy of the Department of Justice to make disclosure to the courts if it finds (1) that a defendant was present or participated in a conversation overheard by unlawful electronic surveillance, and (2) that the government has thereby obtained any information which is arguably relevant to the litigation involved.' The Solicitor General stated that 'As a result of his inquiries and examination, he is satisfied that there is nothing that is arguably relevant to the present case,' that is, 'no overheard conversation in which any of the petitioners participated is arguably relevant to this prosecution.'
We read the response as admitting that Alderisio's conversations were overheard by unlawful electronic eavesdropping but as justifying nondisclosure on the basis of the Department's determination that the information obtained was not arguably relevant to this prosecution. We cannot accept the Department's ex parte determination of relevancy in lieu of such determination in an adversary proceeding in the District Court. Accordingly we grant the petition for certiorari as to each of the petitioners Alderisio and Alderman, * vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the District Court for a hearing, findings, and conclusions on the nature and relevance to these convictions of any conversations that may be shown to have been overheard through unlawful electronic surveillance of petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nolan v. United States
...Government refusal to give a defendant access to records of electronic surveillances involving him. See Kolod v. United States, 390 U.S. 136, 88 S.Ct. 752, 19 L.Ed.2d 962 (1968). Nolan's final claim on this subject is that he was denied a full hearing on the matter of illegally obtained evi......
-
United States v. Skillman
...Here, the tape was introduced as rebuttal evidence only. We are not unmindful of the teachings of Kolod v. United States, 390 U.S. 136, 88 S.Ct. 752, 19 L.Ed.2d 962 (1968), and Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). Upon examination, however, we conclu......
-
United States v. Marquez
...591, 19 L.Ed.2d 661 (1967); Kolod v. United States, 371 F.2d 983, 990-991 (10th Cir. 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 390 U.S. 136, 88 S.Ct. 752, 19 L.Ed.2d 962 (1968); Hayes v. United States, 329 F.2d 209, 221-222 (8th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Bennett v. United States, 377 U.S. 980, 84 S......
-
United States v. Sacco
...that a post-trial hearing is the proper remedy. See Desist v. United States, supra, 394 U.S. at 246-247 n. 5, 89 S.Ct. 1030; Kolod v. United States, 390 U.S. 136, modified on rehearing sub nom. Alderman v. United States, supra, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961; Hoffa v. United States, 1967, 387 U......
-
Robert T. Kingsley (1912-1994)
...[1] People v. Archina, 307 P.2d 1083, 1099 (Colo. 1957). [2] See Kolod v. U.S., 371 F.2d 983 (10th Cir. 1967) (a must read!), vacated 390 U.S. 136 (1968). [3] See U.S. v. Sarkisian, 231 F.Supp. 489 (D.Colo. 1964) (dismissal of indictment that was later corrected and refiled). --------- ...