Tierney v. United States Reilly v. United States 8212 80
| Decision Date | 12 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | A,Nos. A-49,s. A-49 |
| Parties | Kenneth TIERNEY v. UNITED STATES. Mathias REILLY et al. v. UNITED STATES. —80 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
These are applications for bail which raise the questions comparable to those presented in In re Beverly, A—231, in which I granted bail.
In the present cases there was electronic surveillance of a telephone which a court had approved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518. During that surveillance a conversation of applicants' attorney was intercepted.
Applicants were testifying before a grand jury, having been granted immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 and § 6003. On refusing to answer certain questions propounded, they were committed for civil contempt.
The standard for bail in civil contempt proceedings is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1826(b) which specifies that bail shall be granted if the issues are not frivolous and if the appeal is not taken for delay. Here the immunity granted the applicants was a so-called 'use' immunity as distinguished from the 'transactional' immunity which some of us thought was required when the issue was before us last Term in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212.
It is now argued that applicants have obtained all the immunity to which they were constitutionally entitled and that there is no longer an attorney-client privilege to be protected. Hence it is argued that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel which weighed heavily with me in Russo v. Byrne, 409 U.S. 1219, 93 S.Ct. 21, 34 L.Ed.2d 30 (), is not relevant here.
I accept, of course, the Court's decision that only 'use' immunity not 'transactional' immunity, is the constitutional standard under the Fifth Amendment. The fact remains, however, that the 'leads' obtained from testimony given after 'use' immunity has been granted can be used to indict and convict the applicants. It seems to me therefore that the attorney-client privilege does continue and indeed may be much more vital to the applicants than it would have been had 'transactional' immunity been the standard adopted by the Court.
The question remains whether a search warrant issued for electronic surveillance under the Fourth Amendment can invade the domain of the Sixth Amendment and destroy the attorney-client relation. That is an exceedingly serious question on which this Court has not spoken.
Beyond those two questions there is a further one—whether on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vance A., Matter of
...Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U.S. 548, 568, 91 S.Ct. 520, 530, 27 L.Ed.2d 596 (Brennan, J. dissenting); Tierney v. United States, 409 U.S. 1232, 1233-4, 93 S.Ct. 17, 18, 34 L.Ed.2d 37 as to a witness' fear of self-incrimination despite use and derivative-use immunity.14 See Matter of Dorothy......
-
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA DATED NOV. 12, 1991
...an entitlement to bail pending appeal, unless the appeal taken is frivolous or for delay. See Tierney v. United States, 409 U.S. 1232, 1232-33, 93 S.Ct. 17, 17-18, 34 L.Ed.2d 37 (Douglas, Circuit Justice 1972) ("The standard for bail in civil contempt proceedings is set forth in 28 U.S.C. §......
-
U.S. v. A Parcel of Land, Bldgs., Appurtenances and Improvements, Known as 92 Buena Vista Ave., Rumson. N.J.
...not dismiss the complaint. The immunity granted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6002 is, indeed, "use" immunity. Tierney v. United States, 409 U.S. 1232, 93 S.Ct. 17, 34 L.Ed.2d 37 (1972). In United States v. Pellon, 475 F.Supp 467, 479 (S.D.N.Y.1979), the court distinguished "use" immunity from......
-
Meisel v. United States
...in Russo v. Byrne, supra. Here we are concerned with witnesses called to testify before the grand jury. See Tierney v. United States, 409 U.S. 1232, 93 S.Ct. 17, 34 L.Ed.2d 37 (Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). This particular grand jury was investigating firearms transact......