Alderman v. United States

Decision Date17 June 1968
Docket NumberNo. 133,133
Citation392 U.S. 919,88 S.Ct. 2257,20 L.Ed.2d 1381
PartiesWillie Israel ALDERMAN et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The motion of the United States to modify our order of January 29, 1968, 390 U.S. 136, 88 S.Ct. 752, 19 L.Ed.2d 962, is restored to the calendar for reargument at the 1968 Term. Counsel are requested to include among the issues to be discussed in briefs and oral arguments the following:

(1) Should the records of the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio's place of business be subjected to in camera inspection by the trial judge to determine the necessity of compelling the Government to make disclosure of such records to petitioners, and if so to what extent?

(2) If in camera inspection is authorized or ordered, by what standards (for example, relevance and considera- tions of injury to persons or to reputations) should the trial judge determine whether the records are to be turned over to petitioners?

(3) What standards are to be applied in determining whether each petitioner has standing to object to the use against him of the information obtained from the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio's place of business? More specifically, does petitioner Alderisio have standing to object to the use of any or all information obtained from such electronic surveillance whether or not he was present on the premises or party to a particular overheard conversation? Also, does petitioner Alderman have standing to object to the use against him of any or all information obtained from the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio's business establishment?

Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • U.S. v. Mouzin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 18 Marzo 1986
    ... Page 682 ... 785 F.2d 682 ... 54 USLW 2533, 20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 390 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, ... Barbara MOUZIN, Defendant/Appellant ... UNITED STATES ... ...
  • Disciplinary Proceeding Against Heard, In re, 12272
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 24 Septiembre 1998
    ... ... I alleges Heard charged a fee contrary to the fee agreement in violation of RPC 1.5(a) which states: "A lawyer's fees shall be reasonable." The Board found Heard violated this rule by taking a ... ...
  • State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 18 Mayo 1988
    ... ... 119] motion with this court, respondent officially occupied the office of United States District Judge for the District of Nevada. Respondent was not actively engaged in the ... ...
  • Kleiner v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 31 Enero 1985
    ... ... Hansell & Post, Richard Kirby and Richard M. Langway, Appellants ... No. 83-8794 ... United" States Court of Appeals, ... Eleventh Circuit ... Jan. 31, 1985 ... Page 1195 ...     \xC2" ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT