Petitioners were convicted of various counts under an indictment
charging mail and wire fraud and conspiracy, involving the
defrauding of a union pension fund to rehabilitate Sun Valley,
Inc., an enterprise in which certain petitioners had interests. The
Solicitor General has advised that: six months after the
indictment, a conversation between petitioner Burris and one
Sigelbaum was overheard by FBI agents through electronic
eavesdropping; the conversation concerned the proposed transfer to
Sigelbaum of Burris' interest in Sun Valley, and the conduct of the
defense to this prosecution; the information was not introduced
into evidence or used as an investigative lead; it was only
peripherally relevant to the charges, and was partly known through
Burris' statements to government attorneys.
Held: Since there was apparently no direct intrusion
into attorney-client discussions, there is now no adequate
justification to require a new trial for Burris or any other
petitioner. The case is remanded to the District Court for a
hearing, findings, and conclusions on the nature and relevance to
all these convictions of the recorded conversation, and of any
other conversations that may be shown to have been similarly
overheard.
United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co.,
355 U. S. 233.
Certiorari granted; 367 F.2d 698, vacated and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners were convicted of various counts under a 28-count
indictment charging mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1341, 1343, and conspiracy,
Page 387 U. S. 232
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The United States claimed, and
the jury apparently found, that petitioners conspired to defraud,
and did defraud, the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas
Pension Fund of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, with
the prime objective of financially rehabilitating Sun Valley, Inc.,
a real estate enterprise in which certain of the petitioners had
important interests. For reasons which follow, we do not reach, one
way or the other, any of the contentions urged by petitioners in
support of their petition for a writ of certiorari.
In response to the petition, the Solicitor General
sua
sponte has advised the Court that, on December 2, 1963, some
six months after the indictment in this case, a conversation
between petitioner Burris and one Benjamin Sigelbaum, not a
defendant in this prosecution, was overheard by agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation as a result of electronic
eavesdropping. The eavesdropping equipment had been installed in
Sigelbaum's office, by trespass, some 12 months before this
conversation, and thereafter had been maintained in operation. We
are informed by the Solicitor General that the recorded
conversation was concerned both with the proposed transfer to
Sigelbaum of Burris' interest in Sun Valley and with the conduct of
the defense to this prosecution. The Solicitor General has
indicated that the contents of the recording were available to
government attorneys involved in this prosecution, but adds that
the recording was only "peripherally relevant to the charges
underlying [Burris'] conviction."
* We are,
moreover, advised by him that the information obtained through this
electronic eavesdropping was not introduced into evidence at trial,
that it was never the basis of any investigative lead, and that it
was in part already
Page 387 U. S. 233
known, through Burris' own statements, to government attorneys.
Unlike the situations in
Black v. United States,
385 U. S. 26, and
O'Brien v. United States, 386 U.
S. 345, there was apparently no direct intrusion here
into attorney-client discussions. In these circumstances, we find
no "adequate justification,"
Black v. United States,
supra, at
385 U. S. 29,
now to require a new trial of Burris or of any of the other
petitioners; the more orderly and appropriate procedure is instead
to remand the case to the District Court for a hearing, findings,
and conclusions on the nature and relevance to these convictions of
the recorded conversation, and of any other conversations that may
be shown to have been overheard through similar eavesdropping.
United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 U.
S. 233.
We do not accept the Solicitor General's suggestion that such an
inquiry should be confined to the conviction of Burris. We consider
it more appropriate that each of these petitioners be provided an
opportunity to establish, if he can, that the interception of this
particular conversation, or of other conversations, vitiated in
some manner his conviction. We do not intend by this to suggest
that any or all of the petitioners might, under the circumstances
described by the Solicitor General, be entitled to a new trial; we
decide only that further proceedings must be held, and findings and
conclusions made, to determine the content and pertinence to this
case of any such recorded conversations.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari as
to each of the petitioners, vacate the judgment of the Court of
Appeals, and remand the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. In such proceedings, the District Court will confine
the evidence presented by both sides to that which is material to
questions of the content of this and any other electronically
eavesdropped conversations, and of the relevance of any such
Page 387 U. S. 234
conversations to petitioners' subsequent convictions. The
District Court will make such findings of fact on these questions
as may be appropriate in light of the further evidence and of the
entire existing record. If the District Court decides, on the basis
of such findings, that the conviction of any of the petitioners was
not tainted by the use of evidence thus improperly obtained, it
will enter new final judgments as to such petitioners based on the
existing record as supplemented by its further findings, thereby
preserving to all affected parties the right to seek further
appropriate appellate review. If, on the other hand, the District
Court concludes after such further proceedings that the conviction
of any of the petitioners was tainted, it would then become its
duty to accord any such petitioner a new trial.
See United
States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., supra, at
355 U. S.
245-246;
see also Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United
States, 371 U. S. 341.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment
of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK would grant certiorari and set the case for
argument. He dissents from the vacation of the judgment of the
Court of Appeals and from the remand of the case to the District
Court.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.
* Brief for the United States in Opposition 70.