Taglianetti v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 446,446 |
| Citation | 89 S.Ct. 1099,22 L.Ed.2d 302,394 U.S. 316 |
| Parties | Louis J. TAGLIANETTI v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Raymond LaFazia, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, for the United States.
The petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.1 Following a jury trial in the District Court, petitioner was convicted on three counts of wilfully attempting to evade his income tax for the years 1956, 1957, and 1958. Following a remand to the District Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. In the District Court on remand, the Government purported to turn over to petitioner all of his own conversations which had been overheard by means of unlawful electronic surveillance.2 Petitioner argues that he was entitled to examine additional surveillance records because neither the Government nor the District Court was able to determine with certainty which conversations petitioner had been a party to. In fact, the District Court examined all the records in camera to ascertain if the Government had correctly identified petitioner's voice and had turned over to petitioner each conversation in which he had participated.
Nothing in Alderman v. United States, Ivanov v. United States, or Butenko v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176, requires an adversary proceeding and full disclosure for resolution of every issue raised by an electronic surveillance. On the contrary, an adversary proceeding and disclosure were required in those cases, not for lack of confidence in the integrity of government counsel or the trial judge, but only because the in camera procedures at issue there would have been an inadequate means to safeguard a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Here the defendant was entitled to see a transcript of his own conversations and nothing else. He had no right to rummage in government files. The trial court was asked to identify only those instances of surveillance which petitioner had standing to challenge under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and to doublecheck the accuracy of the Government's voice identifications. Under the circumstances presented here, we can- not hold that 'the task is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely wholly on the in camera judgment of the trial court.' Alderman v. United States, supra, 394 U.S., at 182, 89 S.Ct., at 971.
Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nolan v. United States
...of the adversary hearing required by Alderman and Kolod was more closely defined in the recent case of Taglianetti v. United States, 394 U.S. 316, 89 S.Ct. 1099, 22 L.Ed.2d 302 (1969). In holding that the trial court properly double-checked government records in camera to be sure that all r......
-
State v. Adcock
...863, 49 S.Ct. 479, 73 L.Ed. 1002 (1929); Taglianetti v. United States, 398 F.2d 558 (1st Cir.1968), aff'd per curiam, 394 U.S. 316, 89 S.Ct. 1099, 22 L.Ed.2d 302 (1969); United States v. Warren, 453 F.2d 738 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 944, 92 S.Ct. 2040, 32 L.Ed.2d 331 (1972); Un......
-
United States v. Falvey
...basis. Giordano v. United States, 394 U.S. 310, 314, 89 S.Ct. 1163, 1165, 22 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969); Taglianetti v. United States, 394 U.S. 316, 317, 89 S.Ct. 1099, 1100, 22 L.Ed.2d 302 (1969); United States v. Ajlouny, 629 F.2d at 839 (2d Cir. 1980); Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d at 606 n.14; ......
-
Bufalino v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...license to rummage in the files of the Department of Justice." 394 U.S. at 185, 89 S.Ct. at 973; Taglianetti v. United States, 394 U.S. 316, 317, 89 S.Ct. 1099, 22 L.Ed.2d 302 (1969). Since the petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary "taint" to justify the protection offered by Alderm......
-
Tax violations.
...Taglianetti v. United States, 398 F.2d 558, 562 (1st Cir. 1968) (differentiating between net worth and cash expenditure methods), aff'd, 394 U.S. 316 (1969). (69.) See United States v. Sutherland, 929 F.2d 765,780 (1st Cir. 1991) (outlining cash expenditures method); United States v. Citron......
-
Tax violations.
...Taglianetti v. United States, 398 F.2d 558, 562 (1st Cir. 1968) (differentiating between net worth and cash expenditure methods), aff'd, 394 U.S. 316 (1969). (69.) See United States v. Sutherland, 929 F.2d 765, 780 (1st Cir. 1991) (outlining cash expenditures method); United States v. Citro......
-
Tax Fraud Investigations-recent Supreme Court Developments
...1. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2. Taglianetti v. United States, 398 F.2d 558, 566 (1st Cir. 1968), aff'd. on another ground, 394 U.S. 316; United States v. MacKiewicz, 401 F.2d 219, 221-222, (2nd Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 923; United States v. Jaskiewicz, 433 F.2d 415,......
-
Safeguarding the Opportunity for Effective Cross-Examination: The Confrontation Clause and Pretrial Disclosures
...investiga-tive file); [United States v.] Nixon, 418 U.S. [683,] 706 [1974] (presidential communications); Taglianetti v. United States, 394 U.S. 316, 317 (1969) (electronic surveillance records). In camera review is not a new or difficult process; courts do it all the time. Id. at 16–17. ......