Grand Jury Proceedings, In re, 85-1702
| Citation | 786 F.2d 3 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1702,85-1702 |
| Parties | In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, Appeal of Carol HILL, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Jill C. Elijah on brief for appellant.
Michael K. Loucks, Asst. U.S. Atty. and William F. Weld, U.S. Atty., Boston, Mass., on brief for appellee.
Before BOWNES, BREYER and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges.
This appeal presents three questions: whether, under the circumstances before us, the Government must show need and relevance before a Grand Jury subpoena can be enforced against Carol Hill, a paralegal; whether the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on Hill's motion for disclosure of electronic surveillance; and whether Hill's right to confrontation was violated when the district court considered in camera an ex parte affidavit before ruling on her motions.
Carol Hill was subpoenaed to testify before, and to provide fingerprints, handwriting exemplars and a photograph to, a federal Grand Jury sitting in the District of Massachusetts. In response, she filed a motion to quash the subpoena and a motion under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3504 (1985) for disclosure of electronic surveillance. As bases for her motion to quash, she argued that she had been employed as a paralegal for Attorney William Kunstler; that she had worked on the defense of one Christopher King; that the Grand Jury subpoena sought information privileged under the attorney client and/or the work product privilege; that enforcement of the subpoena would have a "chilling effect" on King's Sixth Amendment rights; that enforcement of the subpoena would violate her own First and Fifth Amendment rights to work as a paralegal; and that the subpoena was the product of unlawful electronic surveillance.
The Government responded with an objection to the motion to quash. It submitted an ex parte in camera affidavit, setting forth the factual bases and investigative sources for the questions to be put to Hill, and two additional affidavits, setting forth a denial of illegal electronic surveillance and the absence of a nexus between the questions to be asked of Hill before the Grand Jury and any electronic surveillance. After a hearing, the district court denied Hill's motions without prejudice to their renewal after Hill was questioned before the Grand Jury.
Hill appeared before the Grand Jury and refused to answer any questions beyond those relating to her name, address and prior employment history, asserting, among others, her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Assistant United States Attorney ["AUSA"] advised Hill that she had been granted immunity from prosecution and showed her an order from the judge directing her to testify. Hill refused.
The court held another hearing. Hill realleged her original objection to testifying before or providing evidence to the Grand Jury. The court overruled her objections and ordered her to testify and provide evidence.
Hill remained recalcitrant. The Government filed a petition for contempt; after a hearing, the petition was granted. The court ordered Hill incarcerated during the life of the Grand Jury and denied her bail pending appeal. 1 We affirmed the order denying bail.
Hill argues first that the Sixth Amendment requires the Government to show need and relevance 2 before a grand jury subpoena can be enforced against a paralegal working 3 on the defense and appeal of state and federal charges against the target of the investigation. She insists that the need and relevance test is mandated "[w]here, as here, [a] fundamental constitutional [right is] at stake...." The fundamental constitutional right to which she alludes is the target's right to counsel of his choice--a right that, she claims, will be irreparably damaged should she be forced to testify.
We review the district court's refusal to quash the subpoena for abuse of discretion. In re Grand Jury Matters, 751 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1984).
Assuming for purposes of our discussion and without deciding that a target has a right to counsel, that there exists a constitutional right to counsel of one's choice and that Hill has standing to raise these arguments on King's behalf, it is apparent that Hill's testimony before the Grand Jury would, in no meaningful way, affect King's asserted right to his counsel of choice. 4 Should Hill testify, King would remain free to select Kunstler as his attorney. Hill is not Kunstler's alter ego; she is, or was, his employee and, presumably, is not responsible for significant trial and investigative strategies or decisions. If King has a protected relationship at all, it is with Kunstler, and absent some extraordinary showing, Kunstler's agents or employees do not stand in his shoes. The potential erosion of confidence King may sustain as a result of Hill's testimony is too attenuated to be constitutionally significant. Whatever right King may have to choose Kunstler cannot serve as a shield to legitimate the silence of Kunstler's entire staff: this would effectively defeat Grand Jury investigations.
Accordingly, we reject Hill's claim that her testimony would violate King's right to counsel.
Hill argues next that the district court erred in denying her motion for an evidentiary hearing where there were factual issues in dispute regarding the existence of illegal electronic surveillance.
In support of her claim of an illegal wiretap, Hill submitted an affidavit describing echoes of other voices on her line, frequent clicking sounds, and difficulty getting a dial tone. She also submitted an affidavit of an undercover agent: the agent stated that he had attempted to record a conversation with Hill on at least one occasion.
The Government responded with affidavits from an F.B.I. Special Agent and the AUSA conducting the Grand Jury investigation. The affidavits denied that Hill's appearance before the Grand Jury, and the questions to be asked of her, were the result of any illegal electronic surveillance, and denied Hill's specific claim of surveillance. As noted above, the AUSA submitted, in addition, an ex parte in camera affidavit detailing the sources of the information providing the basis for the questions to put to Hill.
A showing of illegal wiretapping constitutes a defense to contempt charges. Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 47, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 2360, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972). Once a claim of illegal electronic surveillance is made, the Government must " 'affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act.' " In re Quinn, 525 F.2d 222, 225 (1st Cir.1975) (citation omitted); see In re Pantojas, 628 F.2d 701, 703-04 (1st Cir.1980).
Courts have interpreted [18 U.S.C. Sec. 3504] to require the Government to make it reasonably clear that its denial is based on sufficient knowledge to be meaningful.... In general, we shall expect the Government's denial to be amplified to the point of showing that those responding were in a position, by firsthand knowledge or through inquiry, reasonably to ascertain whether or not relevant illegal activities took place; but we shall not ordinarily require evidentiary hearings nor shall we require unrealistically perfect affidavits....
Quinn, 525 F.2d at 225 (citations omitted).
We have recently noted that it is relevant to consider whether the attorney conducting the Grand Jury investigation files an affidavit in response to a Sec. 3504 claim. In re Tse, 748 F.2d 722, 728 (1st Cir.1984). This factor is significant because "the attorney investigating and formulating the questions to the witness will likely have sifted through the evidence and thus will be in a position to recognize whether the evidence on which the questions are based is the product of, say, direct interviews with informants or something else." Id.
After considering the identity of the affiants and the substance of the affidavits, we conclude that the affidavits submitted by the Government were adequate, under Quinn, to discharge its duty to deny the use of unlawfully obtained material.
Hill argues finally that her right to confrontation was violated when the court considered an ex parte affidavit in camera in deciding her motion to quash, her Sec. 3504 motion, and her motion for an evidentiary hearing. The basis of her argument appears to be that since she is incarcerated, and since throughout the proceedings this possibility was not entirely remote, she should have been accorded the right to confront all the evidence against her.
While one found in civil contempt may be incarcerated, it is not established that a potential contemnor is entitled to the full...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stern v. U.S.A. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of MA
...(holding that recourse to the Nixon criteria would unduly interfere with grand jury proceedings); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Hill), 786 F.2d 3, 5 n.2 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (declining to require a showing of "need" or "relevance" before a court may enforce a grand jury subpoena dir......
-
U.S. v. Klubock, 86-1413
...some kind of a "showing" of need or relevance in order for the subpoena to issue, then the rule is at odds with In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Hill), 786 F.2d 3 (1st Cir.1986), a case in which this court refused to adopt this requirement. See also id. at 5 n. 2 (noting that most other circui......
-
Colson v. Joyce
...of the fine until such time as the amount of the fine has been collected. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1304 (1983). 2 See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 786 F.2d 3, 7 (1st Cir.1986) (merely noting, in dicta, that other courts agree that the right to counsel attaches to civil and criminal contempt 3 It ha......
-
Grand Jury 11-84, In re
...the government's denial of the existence of electronic surveillance may be made by a sworn affidavit. E.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Hill), 786 F.2d 3, 7 (1st Cir.1986) (attorney conducting grand jury investigation provided sufficient affidavit that detailed sources of information that......
-
Should public relations experts ever be privileged persons?
...counsel, in the presence and hearing of persons unrelated to him in the matter, that what is said is not privileged."). (21.) In re Hill, 786 F.2d 3, 6 n.4 (1st Cir. 1986) (paralegal); United States v. Pipkins, 528 F.2d 559, 563 (5th Cir. 1976) (handwriting analyst)): Paul R. Rice, Attorney......