Brien v. United States
| Citation | 87 S.Ct. 1158,18 L.Ed.2d 94,386 U.S. 345 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 823,823 |
| Parties | Charles Joseph O'BRIEN et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Philip A. Gillis, for petitioner O'Brien.
Ivan Barris, for petitioner Parisi.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Mervyn Hamburg, for the United States.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, judgment vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for a new trial should the government seek to prosecute petitioners anew. Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26, 87 S.Ct. 190, 17 L.Ed.2d 26.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, whom Mr. Justice STEWART joins, dissenting.
Petitioners in this case, Charles O'Brien and Thomas Parisi, were convicted on several counts of removing merchandise from a bonded area under the supervision of the United States Customs Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 549. The items involved were, on the first count, applicable only to petitioner O'Brien, 14 cases of marble slabs; on the second count, a marble statue of St. Theresa; on the third count, 21 cases of valves and valve handles.
The issues raised in the petition for certiorari involve questions as to the sufficiency of the indictment and alleged errors at trial, none of which could well be deemed worthy of review by this Court. However, the Solicitor General in his response commendably notified the Court that pursuant to a general review of the use of 'electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping,' he discovered that a microphone had been installed in a commercial establishment owned by an acquaintance of petitioner O'Brien. A conversation in which O'Brien participated, occurring after the indictment and concerning his forthcoming trial, was overheard. The Solicitor General characterizes the episode as follows: 'That conversation, although overheard by the monitoring agents and summarized in their logs, was not mentioned in any F.B.I. report nor were its contents communicated to attorneys for the Department of Justice, including those who prosecuted this case.'
The Solicitor General further revealed a later conversation which he characterizes as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Benny
...an accused and his counsel. Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26, 87 S.Ct. 190, 17 L.Ed.2d 26 (1966); O'Brien v. United States, 386 U.S. 345, 87 S.Ct. 1158, 18 L.Ed.2d 94 (1967); United States v. Levy, 577 F.2d 200 (3d Cir.1978); Caldwell v. United States, 205 F.2d 879 (D.C.Cir.1953), cert. ......
-
People v. Figueroa
...control (United States v. Parisi (6th Cir.1966) 365 F.2d 601, 605, vacated on other grounds sub. nom. O'Brien v. United States (1967) 386 U.S. 345, 87 S.Ct. 1158, 18 L.Ed.2d 94); and that a certain apparatus constituted a "still" in a prosecution for unlawfully setting up a still (Guy v. Un......
-
Barber v. Municipal Court
...remedy, fashioned by the federal courts in cases involving breach of attorney-client confidentiality (O'Brien v. United States, (1966) 386 U.S. 345, 87 S.Ct. 1158, 18 L.Ed.2d 94; Hoffa v. United States, (1966) 385 U.S. 293, 307-308, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374; Black v. United States, (196......
-
State v. Sugar
...use at trial of illegally obtained evidence. Id. at 551-552, 97 S.Ct. at 841-842, 51 L.Ed.2d at 38-39, see O'Brien v. United States, 386 U.S. 345, 87 S.Ct. 1158, 18 L.Ed.2d 94 (1967); Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26, 87 S.Ct. 190, 17 L.Ed.2d 26 (1966). According to the Court, either a d......