Gelbard v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Gelbard et al. v. United States
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 71-110. Argued: March 27, 1972 --- Decided: June 26, 1972[1]
Where a grand jury witness is adjudicated in civil contempt under 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (a) for refusing "without just cause shown to comply with an order of the court to testify," the witness may invoke as a defense 18 U.S.C. § 2515, which directs that "[w]henever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any... proceeding in or before any... grand jury...," since a showing that the interrogation would be based upon the illegal interception of the witness' communications would constitute the "just cause" that precludes a finding of contempt. Pp. 46-61.
No. 71-110, 443 F. 2d 837, reversed and remanded;
No. 71-263, 450 F. 2d 199 and 450 F. 2d 231, affirmed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, STEWART, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., post, p. 62, and WHITE, J., post, p. 69, filed concurring opinions. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 71.
Michael E. Tigar argued the cause for petitioners in No. 71-110. With him on the brief was Burton Marks. Mr. Marks filed a brief for petitioner Gelbard in No. 71-110.
Deputy Solicitor General Friedman argued the cause for the United States in both cases. On the brief in No. 71-110 were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Petersen, Allan A. Tuttle, and Beatrice Rosenberg. On the brief in No. 71-263 were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Mardian, Mr. Tuttle, and Robert L. Keuch.
Jack J. Levine argued the cause pro hac vice for respondent Egan in No. 71-263. With him on the brief was Charles R. Nesson. Bernard L. Segal filed a brief for respondent Walsh in No. 71-263.
Melvin L. Wulf, Sanford Jay Rosen, Thomas Harvey, and Laurence R. Sperber filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging reversal in No. 71-110 and affirmance in No. 71-263. Frank G. Carrington, Jr., and Alan S. Ganz filed a brief for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., as amicus curiae urging reversal in No. 71-263.
Notes
[edit]- ↑ Together with No. 71-263, United States v. Egan et al. on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.