Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Committee of Judicial Council of Eleventh Circuit, Matter of

Decision Date20 February 1986
Docket NumberNos. 85-2054,85-5420,s. 85-2054
Citation783 F.2d 1488
Parties, 19 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1279 In the Matter of CERTAIN COMPLAINTS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY AN INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE OF the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF the ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Betty Ann WILLIAMS and Alan Ehrlich, as members of the official staff of the Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, and the Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, United States District Judge, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Spencer MERCER, as Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; and the Honorable John C. Godbold, Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, the Honorable Gerald Bard Tjoflat and Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Judges of the . Pointer and William C. O'Kelley, Judges serving on United States District Courts within the Eleventh Circuit, as members of a committee known as the Investigating Committee of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit, Defendants-Appellees. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Terrence J. Anderson, Coral Gables, Fla., Robert Catz, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs-appellants.

John Doar, New York City, G. Stewart Webb, Baltimore, Md., for defendants-appellees.

Daniel Simons, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., pro se.

Jeffrey Miller, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., pro se.

Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div. Brook Hedge, Washington, D.C., Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for U.S.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before CAMPBELL *, Chief Judge, KEARSE **, Circuit Judge, and PELL ***, Senior Circuit Judge.

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Chief Judge:

This opinion concerns the latest of the cases stemming from the Eleventh Circuit's investigation of Judge Alcee Hastings, a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge Hastings and, in the instant case, present and former members of his staff have strongly challenged the legal and constitutional propriety of the investigation itself, of the Act of Congress which authorizes and directs judicial councils to conduct such investigations, and of many of the procedures involved.

The current opinion disposes of two separate proceedings which were consolidated and heard together before us on June 17, 1985. 1

The first of these consisted of original subpoena enforcement proceedings commenced in this court by the Investigating Committee of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit (the "Investigating Committee" or "Committee") under the asserted authority of the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 332(d)(1), 372(c)(9)(A) ("the Act"). In these proceedings, the Committee seeks orders enforcing subpoenas that the Committee caused to be issued under seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to Betty Ann Williams, Alan Ehrlich, Daniel Simons, and Jeffrey Miller. Ms. Williams is the secretary, and the three others are law clerks or former law clerks, of Judge Hastings.

The second matter is an appeal by Ms. Williams, Mr. Ehrlich and Judge Hastings from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Wilkens, J., sitting by designation) dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, their action seeking injunctive, declaratory and other relief against the above-mentioned subpoenas to Williams and Ehrlich, 610 F.Supp. 169 (D.Fla.1985).

Both of the above matters raise similar issues, to wit: 1) whether the Act confers original jurisdiction upon the United States courts of appeals to enforce or quash subpoenas issued under the Act, and 2) whether the subpoenas in question are valid and enforceable despite appellants' 2 claims of privilege and of various constitutional and technical defects. We answer both questions in the affirmative, enforcing the Committee's subpoenas to Williams and Ehrlich, directing Simons and Miller to testify before the Committee in response to the matters as to which they have refused, and affirming the dismissal of the district court action.

I. PROCEEDINGS TO DATE

The history of the Committee's investigation of Judge Hastings' judicial conduct has been set out in our earlier opinion, In re Petition to Inspect and Copy Grand Jury Materials, 735 F.2d 1261, 1263-64 (11th Cir.1984), and need not be repeated here. Further background may be found in Hastings v. Judicial Conference of the United States, 593 F.Supp. 1371 (D.D.C.1984), vacated and remanded, 770 F.2d 1093 (D.C.Cir.1985), which, among other things, sets out the complaint against Judge Hastings that is the focus of the present investigation. Filed on March 17, 1983, by two judges of district courts within the Eleventh Circuit, the complaint alleges that Judge Hastings has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and has violated several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges, adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Its most serious allegations are that Judge Hastings has conspired to obtain a bribe in return for an official judicial act. Other allegations are as follows: 1) that Judge Hastings made "public and unfounded statements" that the United States was prosecuting him on racial/political grounds; 2) that Judge Hastings has exploited his judicial position by accepting financial donations from lawyers and others to defray the costs of his criminal defense; 3) that in particular cases Judge Hastings has "completely abdicated and delegated" his decisionmaking authority to his law clerk; 4) that Judge Hastings has told counsel in a judicial proceeding that he had read an important precedent when he knew he had not; and 5) that Judge Hastings has exploited his judicial position by soliciting funds for someone he knew was a convicted federal offender. Id. at 1376-77.

We now proceed to a fuller description of the specific matters before us.

A. The Committee's Original Subpoena Enforcement Proceedings

In May 1985 the Committee, acting through the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, directed that subpoenas be issued and served on Williams, Ehrlich, Simons, and Miller commanding each to appear before it on a specified date later that month, and directing Williams to produce the originals of certain appointment diaries, telephone logs, and the like from Judge Hastings' chambers. 3 Each subpoena was issued by the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit under the seal of that court, as provided in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 332(d)(1), and was signed by the Chief Judge as well as by the clerk of that court. Representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation served each subpoena and tendered the appropriate mileage and witness fees at the time of service.

The subpoena to Williams commanded her to appear to testify before the Committee on May 20, 1985, and bring with her the indicated documents. 4 She did not, however, appear on that date but instead filed in this court a document which she styled as a Notice of Objection to Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum and of Intent to Seek Protective Order and Other Relief. In this she claimed a privilege purportedly protecting against disclosure of in-chambers communications among a judge and his staff. Following the Committee's filing of a motion for contempt, we issued an order requiring Williams to show cause why she should not be adjudged in contempt, but subsequently withdrew that order. The Committee then filed in this court what it called a Motion for an Order Enforcing the Subpoena and Directing Betty Ann Williams to Testify as to All Pertinent Matters.

The subpoena to Ehrlich commanded him to appear to testify before the Committee on May 27, 1985. Before that date, Ehrlich filed in this court a so-called Notice of Objection to Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum and of Pending Case Challenging Subpoena and Seeking Injunctive and Other Relief, and a Motion to Quash or Recall Subpoena and Supplemental Notice of Objections. In his filings Ehrlich asserted a privilege similar to that claimed by Williams. Ehrlich did not appear on May 27. The Committee then filed in this court what it entitled a Motion for an Order Directing Alan Ehrlich to Testify as to All Pertinent Matters.

The subpoenas to both Simons and Miller commanded them to appear to testify before the Committee on May 27, 1985. Before that date, Simons filed in this court a Notice of Objection to Subpoena and Request for Judicial Clarification and Motion to Quash Subpoena. This filing relied on a claim of privilege similar to that raised by Williams and Ehrlich. Miller filed no papers in response to the subpoena. Both Simons and Miller appeared and testified before the Committee on May 28, but both refused to testify, on grounds of privilege, about communications among Judge Hastings and his staff. The Committee then filed in this court motions for orders directing Simons and Miller to testify as to all pertinent matters.

B. The District Court Action

On May 20, Judge Hastings, Williams and Ehrlich brought the district court action from which they now appeal by filing a complaint against the Committee and the clerk of this court (viz., of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint sought injunctive relief to restrain enforcement of the subpoenas directed to Williams and Ehrlich, an order requiring return of documents already produced by Williams in response to a previous subpoena (the "equitable replevin" claim), and a declaratory judgment that the subpoena power conferred on the Committee by the Act is invalid and that all subpoenas issued and served pursuant thereto are unenforceable. On motion of the Committee, the district court (Wilkins, J., sitting by designation) dismissed the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • US v. Brodie, Crim. No. 87-0492.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 19, 1988
    ... ... from among six judges recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States. All the members ... Under the statute, the guidelines are to be consistent ... serve maximum terms, and the relief of certain categories of first offenders from sentences of ... This is not an insignificant, formalistic matter: these two officials may be expected to act as ... Columbia tribunal); Matter of Certain Complaints, 783 F.2d 1488, 1503-10 (11th Cir.1986) ... Court and the Court of Appeals for this Circuit have, particularly in recent years, exhibited an ... section by section analysis, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary stated that "placement of the ... Commission cases, 21 the Third and the Eleventh Circuits upheld the validity of the service on ... managing the Federal Bureau of Investigation one week and presiding over the criminal trials ... ...
  • In re Search of the Rayburn House, Room Number
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 10, 2006
    ... ... past year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been conducting an investigation into ... that would be considered privileged under" the Speech or Debate Clause ...        \xC2" ... matter is controlled by Brown & Williamson Tobacco ... of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit quashed subpoenas issued to two Members of ... , may be issued only pursuant to prior judicial approval, and authorizes Government officers to ... of government: federal judges, see In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488, ... suggestion that [the House Select Committee on Aging] will screen what is and what is not ... ...
  • Fowler v. Board of Educ. of Lincoln County, Ky.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 21, 1987
    ... ... Sixth Circuit ... Argued Feb. 17, 1987 ... Decided June 1, ... language to mandate an automatic "R" rating under motion picture industry standards, was played ... by the First Amendment, such conduct "as a matter of fact and law did not constitute conduct ... prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject ... See also In re Matter of Certain Complaints Under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488, 1512-13 (11th ... ...
  • US ex rel. Stillwell v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • June 1, 1989
    ... ...         This matter is before the Court on defendants McDonnell ... for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R. Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The defendants ask this ... vested by the Constitution in either the judicial or the executive branches. See, e.g., Bowsher ... , 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987); see also In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488, ... ) (upholding statute authorizing judicial council to investigate improper conduct by federal ... Federal Open Market Committee, 644 F.Supp. 510, 521 (D.D.C.1986) ("The ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Personal Jurisdiction, Process, and Venue in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • January 1, 2014
    ...v. Mercer (In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigatory Comm. of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit), 783 F.2d 1488, 1516 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting FTC’s authority to issue nationwide subpoenas); FTC v. Jim Walter Corp., 651 F.2d 251, 256 (5th Cir. 1981) (permit......
  • Personal Jurisdiction, Process, and Venue in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook. Second Edition Business Tort Litigation
    • June 23, 2006
    ...v. Mercer ( In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigatory Comm. of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit), 783 F.2d 1488, 1516 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting FTC’s authority to issue nationwide subpoenas); FTC v. Jim Walter Corp., 651 F.2d 251, 256 (5th Cir. 1981) (permi......
  • Counsels, councils and lunch: preventing abuse of the power to appoint independent counsels.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 144 No. 6, June 1996
    • June 1, 1996
    ...or overbroad); In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit, 783 F.2d 1488, 1505-16 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding, in an action by Judge Hastings's staff to quash subpoenas, that the Act did not violate separation of powe......
  • Google and ye shall be found: privacy, search queries, and the recognition of a qualified privilege.
    • United States
    • Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal Vol. 34 No. 1, September 2007
    • September 22, 2007
    ...See Reichhold Chems., Inc. v. Textron, Inc., 157 F.R.D. 522, 526 (N.D. Fla. 1994). (261.) In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488, 1522 (11th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). To meet the burden of proof, the party seeking discovery must show "the importance of the inquiry fo......
  • 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