671 F.2d 769 (3rd Cir. 1982), 79-2414, Ferri v. Bell
|Citation:||671 F.2d 769|
|Party Name:||Francis Rick FERRI, Appellant, v. BELL, The Honorable Griffin, United States Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Griffith, Blair, U. S. Atty Western District of Pa., Thornburg, Richard, Former U. S. Atty Western District of Pa., Special Agent in Charge of FBI Operations in the Western Dist. of Pa., Former Special Agent in Charge|
|Case Date:||February 24, 1982|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Resubmitted Feb. 22, 1982.
Francis Rick Ferri, pro se.
Richard C. Turkington, Villanova, Pa., amicus curiae.
Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Carlon M. O'Malley, Jr., U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., Leonard Schaitman, Marleigh D. Dover, Attys., Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before ADAMS, GIBBONS, and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION SUR REHEARING
Following the entry of judgment after this case was first considered on appeal, a petition for rehearing was submitted by the Government raising several objections to the Court's interpretation of the exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (1976). Because of the importance of the questions raised by the Government, and because this appeal was submitted by Ferri pro se, we appointed an amicus curiae to brief the issues in dispute, granted the petition for rehearing, and vacated the original judgment. After considering the briefs of the amicus curiae 1 and the parties to this dispute, we now reinstate the original opinion but, because of new information that the Government has brought to our attention, modify and clarify the earlier judgment.
With its petition for rehearing the Government submitted for the first time various affidavits which bear significantly on the access Ferri should have to the arrest record of one Lynn Dunn, the principal witness against him at the trial in which he was convicted. Ferri indicated in his pro se brief that such information was necessary for purposes of inquiring whether the Government made an undisclosed deal with Dunn in exchange for his testimony against the defendant, in which event Ferri would have grounds to attack his conviction collaterally as a denial of due process under Brady v. Maryland...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP