Brown v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1914.,72-1914. |
| Citation | 465 F.2d 371 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Sylvia Jane BROWN, a witness before the United States Grand Jury, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William L. Osterhoudt (argued), of Singer & Osterhoudt, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
George Calhoun, Atty. (argued), Robert L. Keuch, Atty., A. William Olson, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Guy L. Goodwin, Sp. Atty., Washington, D. C., Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before BROWNING, ELY, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
After argument in this court of her appeal from an order adjudging Sylvia Jane Brown in contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury, the United States Supreme Court handed down Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972), reversing United States v. Gelbard, 443 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1971); Reed v. United States, 448 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1971); Olsen v. United States, 446 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1971); and Bacon v. United States, 446 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1971).
Because Gelbard now requires a remand to the district court for a factual determination on the alleged use by the government of illegal electronic eavesdropping, it is not now necessary to decide the other issues tendered in this appeal.
The appellant has been at liberty upon a stay granted by this court, and, accordingly, no one has been prejudiced by the limitations of the thirty-day period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1826. Once again, we express no opinion upon the constitutional question that might be presented if a party insists upon a final decision within such a time frame. See Charleston v. United States, 444 F.2d 504 (9th Cir.), petition for cert. dismissed, 404 U.S. 916, 92 S.Ct. 241, 30 L.Ed.2d 191 (1971).
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
January 1976 Grand Jury, In re
...or argument regarding the effect of this panel's non-compliance with the literal terms of Section 1826(b). As in Brown v. United States, 465 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1972), we express no opinion upon the constitutional question that might be presented if a party insists upon a final decision with......
-
Rosahn, In re, 819
...supra, 547 F.2d at 419. See in accord, In re January 1976 Grand Jury, 534 F.2d 719, 730 n.11 (7th Cir. 1976); Brown v. United States, 465 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1972). Turning to the merits, Rosahn's first argument is that Judge Cooper erred in refusing to grant an adjournment. We disagree......
-
Grand Jury Matter, In re
...In re Rosahn, 671 F.2d 690, 694 (2d Cir.1982); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Gravel), 605 F.2d 750 (5th Cir.1979); and Brown v. U.S., 465 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir.1972). 1 The 30-day time frame specified in Sec. 1826(b) was designed to protect the incarcerated recalcitrant witness from protra......
-
Melickian v. U.S.
...v. Doe, 460 F.2d 328, 332 n.3 (1st Cir. 1972).8 In Re 1976 Grand Jury, 534 F.2d 719, 730 n.11 (7th Cir. 1976); Brown v. United States, 465 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1972).9 In Re Long Visitor, 523 F.2d 443, 445 (8th Cir. 1975).10 Hearings on S. 30 Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Proc......