UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
vs.
Dennis BANKS, Defendant. UNITED
STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Russell MEANS, Defendant
Nos. Cr. 73-5034, Cr. 73-5062, Cr.
73-5035, Cr. 73-5063
United States District Court For The
District Of South Dakota, Western Division
374 F. Supp. 321, 1974 U.S. Dist.
Decision
April 30, 1974
Nichol, Chief Judge.
[F. Supp. 322]
NICHOL, Chief Judge.
In this case, stemming from the 71
day siege/occupation of the hamlet of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, an extended
adversary hearing was held, pursuant to the requirements of Alderman v.
United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961, 22 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1969), to
determine whether this case should be dismissed on the basis of governmental
misconduct. The motion propounds four basic charges: (1) the alleged illegal
interception of wire communications from Wounded Knee through use of a
party line at roadblock one; (2) the alleged [F. Supp. 323] failure
of the government to comply fully with the discovery order; (3) the alleged
interference by the government with confidential attorney-client relationships
through the interception of attorney-client conversations on the party-line
telephone, and (4) the alleged general government dishonesty and misconduct.
It requires no citation of authority
to conclude that dismissal of a criminal prosecution should be the last
resort of the trial judge who is attempting to remedy the prejudicial effects
of alleged governmental wiretapping and misconduct. Accused individuals
must be brought to trial or our institutions for the maintenance of societal
order will collapse. It is only when a court can conclude that it is powerless
to provide a criminal defendant with a fair trial, now or at any time in
the reasonable future, should the court dismiss the case. With those prefatory
observations in mind, I pass to an analysis of the four areas outlined
above.
POINT I -- ILLEGAL INTERCEPTION OF
WIRE COMMUNICATION
Throughout the hearing, there has been
a great deal of contradiction and confusion regarding the facts, but certain
agreement has emerged on the following.
On March 5, 1973, M. Joe Pourier, employee
of the Bison State Telephone Company, at the direction of then deputy Marshall
Tommy Hudson, installed three telephones on one line leading from Pine
Ridge, South Dakota, into Wounded Knee. Two of these phones (with one number)
were placed in the Trading Post at Wounded Knee and the third (with a different
number but on the same party line as the other two) was installed at a
position outside of Wounded Knee known at that time as Government roadblock
one.
The phones were operable between March
5, 1973, and April 6th, or possibly April 13, 1973 (for the roadblock phone),
and between March 5, 1973, and April 9, 1973 (for the Trading Post phone),
with certain periods of service disruption when lines were out or there
was some trouble on the lines. While it was functioning, the roadblock
phone was monitored several times and conversations emanating from Wounded
Knee were overheard by at least six different FBI agents: Bertinot, Hemmert,
Roley, Dick, Harvey and Samuels. Other agents knew such monitoring had
taken place and include Trimbach, Hoxie, Sanders, and possibly Chaney.
On March 13, 1973, FBI special agent
Thomas Parker transmitted to the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.,
a wiretap application and affidavit under Title III of the Omnibus Crime
Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq., in connection with the telephone at
Wounded Knee. Said application was never approved by the Attorney General.
The Trading Post phone was disconnected either April 6, 1973, or April
13, 1973.
A. Applicability of 18 U.S.C. Secs.
2510-2520 -- Whether roadblock phone was installed and used in the ordinary
course of business.
In its brief, the government argues
that Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,
18 U.S.C. Secs. 2510-2520, has no application to the alleged interception
because the telephone connection at roadblock one was for the purpose of
furnishing service ". . . to the subscriber or user . . . in the ordinary
course of business . . . .1
The following discussion shows the facts to be otherwise.
[F. Supp. 324] 1. Those
in Wounded Knee were not informed of the phone at roadblock one.
M. Joe Pourier, the employee of the
Biston State Telephone Company who installed both the Wounded Knee phones
and the roadblock phone on March 5, 1973, testified that when he installs
a party-line telephone in his work, he customarily tells a subscriber that
it is a party-line hookup. In this case, however, he could not be sure
whether he told anyone at the Wounded Knee Trading Post that he was installing
a party-line since the government was the subscriber that was going to
pay for the use of the telephone, not the occupants of the Trading Post.
Clyde Bellecourt testified that he was with Mr. Pourier during the entire
time that Pourier installed the phone at the Trading Post. He stated that
Pourier never told him or anyone else in his presence that the telephone
was a party line or that there was going to be an extension to that phone
at roadblock one. Government witness Thomas Nelson also testified that
he told no one in the Trading Post about the existence of an extension
or party-line phone on the same line at roadblock one.
Ramon Roubideaux and Mark Lane, attorneys
for the defendants, both of whom were inside Wounded Knee during the siege/occupation,
testified that they knew nothing about the party-line to the Trading Post
phone which was located at roadblock one. Indeed, chief government negotiator
Kent Frizzell knew nothing of the existence of the roadblock phone when
he assured Mr. Lane that the phones at the Trading Post were not tapped.
(While it is true that such assurances were probably made after the roadblock
phone had been disconnected, Mr. Frizzell had not known that there was
ever a telephone at roadblock one).
2. Installation for purpose of negotiation.
Mr. Pourier also testified that he
was asked to install the phones at the Trading Post and roadblock one by
United States Deputy Marshal Tommy Hudson who requested that the phones
be put on the same pair of wires in order to facilitate negotiations between
the occupiers of Wounded Knee and those government officials manning the
roadblock, including the Community Relations Service people from the Justice
Department, the FBI, and others. Hudson had received such instructions
from his Director, Mr. Colburn, Tommy Nelson, the BIA electrician who helped
Pourier with the installations, also testified that he had been told by
Pourier that the phones were being installed for negotiating purposes.
Further testimony as to the negotiating
purpose behind the roadblock phone installation was given by FBI agents
Hoxie and Samuels. Samuels explained that it was his understanding that
the phone was at roadblock one to permit communication in an emergency
situation between the roadblock and the occupants of Wounded Knee or between
the roadblock and the Command Post headquarters of the FBI in Pine Ridge.
Strangely, however, both Hoxie and Samuels agreed the phone was useless
for their purposes because it was a party line, and both admitted they
did not know the special dialing procedure necessary to communicate with
the other party line number at the Trading Post inside Wounded Knee.
Contrary to the foregoing testimony
declaring negotiation to be the purpose of the telephone installation at
roadblock one, FBI special agent Thomas Parker, in his teletyped answer
to an FBI request for information as to who had used the phone at roadblock
one, stated that because of the poor radio communications maintained between
the Pine Ridge Command Post and roadblock one, the phone was installed
to facilitate communications between those two points. This would partially
coincide with agent Samuels' testimony, although no mention was made by
agent Parker of any negotiation purpose served by the roadblock telephone
until he testified in court at a later time, claiming that his memory [F.
Supp. 325] had been refreshed as to the purpose of the phone installation.
Several of the FBI agents who actually
overheard conversations on the roadblock phone never heard of its being
installed or used for negotiation or any other purpose other than monitoring.
These include agents Bertinot, Roley (Malone), Sanders, Dick and Harvey,
none of whom knew the complicated dialing procedure for reaching the Trading
Post.
Further evidence militating against
any actual purpose of negotiation behind installation of the phone was
brought out by testimony of defense attorney Roubideaux. Mr. Roubideaux
stated that his understanding of the reason behind putting a telephone
inside Wounded Knee was not to negotiate but to enable those inside Wounded
Knee to contact their attorneys, but he did not know of the existence of
the roadblock phone. It seems unbelievable indeed that if the intent were
to facilitate negotiations between those at the Trading Post and those
at roadblock one, that neither the defendants' attorney nor the government's
chief negotiator knew about it.
3. Actual Use of Roadblock Phone.
Despite such testimony proclaiming
the various purposes behind the installation, the glaring truth is that
there was absolutely no evidence that the telephone at roadblock one was
actually
used for either negotiation with the occupiers of Wounded Knee, or
for communication with the FBI command post. Indeed, how could it have
been used to contact Wounded Knee when no one who knew of the existence
of the phone (other than the installers) knew how to dial the Trading Post
number? Any desired contact among the above three points was invariably
made by radio. In fact, except for special agent Roley's one unsuccessful
attempt to use the phone to order supplies (she heard voices and hung up),
the only use made of the telephone at roadblock one was by FBI agents monitoring
conversations of the individuals at Wounded Knee. An in-court admission
was made by government attorney R. D. Hurd that the roadblock phone was
essentially useless for anything other than overhearing because of the
heavy use by the people inside Wounded Knee of the Trading Post phone which
was on the same party line.
The strongest and most convincing evidence
of interception via the roadblock telephone came from the FBI special agents
themselves. Those who served at roadblock one and who used the phone, used
it for one purpose only -- to monitor conversations coming from the Wounded
Knee Trading Post. There was not one instance shown where the phone was
actually used to communicate with those inside Wounded Knee or to communicate
with the Command Post.
4. Indications that the government
itself realized the monitoring was improper.
Evidence was presented that at least
one of those FBI agents on duty during the siege/occupation had an indication
that any monitoring of the phone would be improper. Special agent Tom Parker
testified that while he did not know if monitoring the roadblock phone
would have been illegal, it must have crossed his mind. He said this because
on or about March 8, 1973, agent Parker gave instructions at a briefing
for approximately 20-50 FBI agents that "no agents should use that phone
for monitoring" because "I didn't want any accusations of illegal monitoring."
(Again, it seems strange that none of the agents who were at the roadblock
and were questioned during the hearing acknowledged receiving such instructions).
It was after giving these instructions that agent Parker prepared a wiretap
affidavit in an attempt to obtain a wiretap authorization. The sequence
of Parker's actions leads quite clearly to the conclusion that Parker was
at least instinctively aware that monitoring by the FBI without legal authorization
would be improper and illegal.
Agent Parker was not alone in his misgivings.
In an affidavit, Henry Petersen, [F. Supp. 326] Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, stated that
at the time the wiretap application for Wounded Knee reached him, he expressed
concern that the probable cause for and justification of Parker's application
might be based on information obtained from illegal eavesdropping.
Since the application was either turned
down or withdrawn, there is no need to determine whether any such monitoring
was a basis for the Title III application. The relevant fact here is that
Petersen's knowledge that federal agents might have listened in on party-line
conversations "raised questions" in his mind as to whether such party-line
eavesdropping was legal. One must remember such doubts were raised even
when Petersen thought the line was an 8 to 10 party line. His doubts would
have been overwhelmingly confirmed if he had been aware of all the evidence
brought out by the adversary hearing.
5. Conclusions
This court concludes that the sole
use made of the party-line phone at roadblock one was for intercepting
or monitoring wire communications coming out of Wounded Knee, and that
the phone served no legitimate purpose. A telephone used solely for such
monitoring cannot be said to fall within the exclusion in 18 U.S.C. Sec.
2510(5) (a) of "[a] telephone . . . (i) furnished to a subscriber . . .
in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber
in the ordinary course of its business. . . ." This was not the case of
a regularly installed party-line telephone in normal use. Indeed, no normal
use was ever made of the phone in question. This court therefore holds
that the use of the telephone at roadblock one falls directly within the
prohibitions of the statute and constitutes an illegal interception of
a wire communication under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510(4),
(5).
Although there seem to be no cases
directly on point, Lee v. Florida, 392 U.S. 378, 88 S. Ct. 2096, 20 L.
Ed. 2d 1166 (1968), has similarities, the relevance of which are not destroyed
by the fact that the decision in Lee was based on 47 U.S.C. Sec.
605, a section of the Federal Communications Act which prohibits unlawful
interceptions and divulgence of a wire communication. Illegal interception
alone constitutes a crime under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511 et seq. In Lee,
the Orlando police department installed a party-line to petitioner's phone
in a neighboring house. The police then proceeded to monitor and record
all party line conversations by use of an automatic actuator, a tape recorder,
and a set of earphones. The evidence gained from such monitoring was held
to be inadmissible in the state court trial of Lee. The Supreme Court,
in comparing the Lee situation with the one in Rathbun v. United
States, 355 U.S. 107, 78 S. Ct. 161, 2 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1957), where evidence
obtained from an interception was held admissible, pointed out that, in
Lee,
"there was neither 'the consent of one party ' nor a 'regularly used '
telephone 'not . . . installed . . . just for (the) purpose ' of surveillance."
Lee,
392 U.S. at 381, 88 S. Ct. at 2099. The same distinction from
Rathbun
is present here. There was no consent of any party to a conversation and
this Court has already concluded the telephone was not regularly used for
any purpose other than monitoring.
The Supreme Court in Lee further
stated that "This is not a case, however, where the police merely picked
up the receiver on an ordinary party line, and we need not decide whether
§ 605 would be applicable in those circumstances." Id. at 381, 88
S. Ct. at 2098. The Court went on to point out in a footnote that there
was nothing in the language or history of Sec. 605 to indicate that Congress
meant to afford any less protection to those who, by virtue of geography
or financial hardship, must use party-line telephones. Id. at 381, n. 1,
88 S. Ct. 2096. This Court feels the same is true of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511
and points out that while the Supreme Court specifically [F. Supp. 327]
did not decide the situation involving an "ordinary party line", the roadblock
telephone in this case was not any ordinary party line. Even if the roadblock
phone had not been installed specifically for the purpose of surveillance,
such surveillance necessarily became the purpose when the phone was put
to no other use.
Relying on the similar circumstances
in Lee v. Florida, the wording of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2510-2511, and the evidence
presented in the adversary hearing, this Court finds substantial support
for declaring the government use of the telephone at roadblock one to be
an illegal interception of a wire communication.
B. No need for expectation of privacy.
Contrary to government contentions,
there is no expectation of privacy requirement for a wire, as opposed
to an oral interception. See 18 U.S.C. 2510, United States v. Pui
Kan Lam, 483 F.2d 1202 (2 Cir. 1973), and United States v. Carroll, 332
F. Supp. 1299 (D.D.C. 1971).
There is one other assertion by the
government which deserves mention here. The government claims that the
defendants were illegally in possession of the Trading Post and the town
of Wounded Knee and therefore, any over-hearings of conversations would
not constitute an interception under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511. In disagreeing
with this contention, I would point out three considerations: (1) the illegality
of the defendants' presence in Wounded Knee is one of the matters that
will be decided by this whole trial. No prejudgment can be made as to the
legality or illegality of the siege/occupation.
(2) The cases cited by the government
to support its contention are inapropos. United States v. Lam, supra,
involved the overhearing of an oral, not wire communication. It was there
held that defendants had no right to an expectation of privacy in an oral
conversation when they were committing an illegal act in someone else's
home. The cases of Flaherty v. State, Arkansas Supreme Court, 255 Ark.
187, 500 S.W. 2d 87, October 1, 1973, and United States v. Pasha, 332 F.2d
193 (7th Cir. 1964), both involved a police or government agent listening
as one of the parties to a phone conversation. Both those cases
thus fall under the exception of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2) (c) which provides:
(c) It shall not be unlawful under
this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire
or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication
or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such
interception.
(3) Finally, the telephones in both
the Flaherty and Pasha cases had been in existence and used
in the ordinary course of business before the listening took place. The
same is not true of the roadblock phone which was used solely for monitoring
purposes.
C. Treaty of 1868
As an alternative ground charging the
illegality of the monitoring, the defendants contend that it is violative
of the Sioux Treaty of 1868. Article I provides:
If bad men among the whites, or among
other people subject to the authority of the United States, shall commit
any wrong upon the person or property of the Indians, the United States
will, upon proof made to the agent and forwarded to the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs at Washington City, proceed at once to cause the offender
to be arrested and punished according to the laws of the United States,
and also reimburse the injured person for the loss sustained.
Having found the monitoring violative
of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 et seq., this court finds it unnecessary to pass
upon that contention.
D. Standing
Although under Alderman v. United States,
394 U.S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961, 22 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1969), codefendants and
co-conspirators have no special [F. Supp. 328] standing and cannot
prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained
through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another, both
Dennis Banks and Russell Means have standing in this action challenging
the illegal telephonic interception. Although those FBI agents who admitted
monitoring phone conversations gave more indication that Dennis Banks'
voice was overheard, the memorandum of agent Bertinot contains the statement
that he "picked up the receiver of the phone and heard voices of individuals
who later identified as either Russell Means or Dennis Banks and entertainment
personality Dick Cavett." This indication that Means could have been overheard,
plus the fact that unidentified male voices (which could have been Means)
were heard by other FBI agents, both of which are unrefuted, support the
Court's conclusion that both defendants have standing in this case.
As a result of this court's conclusion
that an illegal wire interception occurred by the government monitoring
of the telephone at roadblock one, all evidence obtained as a result of
said monitoring will be inadmissible in the trial of United States v. Dennis
Banks and Russell Means. Any exculpatory or proper Jencks Act material
surfacing as a result of the monitoring shall be immediately turned over
to defendants by the government, and any inculpatory evidence derived from
the monitoring shall be suppressed.
POINT II -- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE DISCOVERY ORDER.
The defendants set forth a large number
of alleged violations of this Court's discovery order. Before analyzing
the government's specific failures, it must be pointed out that they do
not encompass that failure for which the sanction of dismissal is most
appropriate -- the destruction or loss of evidence.2
Nowhere is it alleged that there exists a specific piece of evidence which
cannot be made available to the defense. The defendants contend, nevertheless,
that the prosecution should be dismissed. It is the contention of the defendants
that the number and nature of the transgressions of the discovery order
lead to the conclusion that the government engaged in a purposeful or grossly
negligent attempt to impede the orderly carrying out of the court's discovery
order and that the delays in obtaining the evidence work to the irremedial
prejudice of the defendants. The defendants contend also that the number
and nature of those transgressions creates an implication of bad faith
on the part of the government, and that any further reliance upon the government
to comply with its continuing duty under the discovery order is misplaced
and hopeless.
Perhaps the case most strongly supportive
of the defendants' position is United States v. Seafarers International
Union of North America et al., 343 F. Supp. 779 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). Certain
officials of a labor union were charged under the Federal Corrupt Practices
Act with collecting and disbursing funds for political purposes. The court
thus characterized the government's failure to comply with the court's
discovery orders:
. . . the court finds that the Government
has chosen to embark on a course of purposeful conduct designed to secure
a tactical advantage, resisting both suggestions and orders of two judges
of the court to furnish the defendants with requisite pretrial disclosure
[F.
Supp. 329] while, simultaneously, demanding an early trial date. Id.
at 789.
The court dismissed the case. But it
was not the government's failure to comply with the discovery orders which
ended the case. It was the fact that the failure caused a delay of 23 months,
during which the defendants' key witness, the only defendant named in the
substantive, non-conspiracy count, died. The court concluded that the delay
had seriously prejudiced the defendants and that, to force them to defend
would result in a denial of their right to a speedy trial and to due process
of law. In the case before this court, neither does the conduct of the
government approach that of the prosecution in Seafarers, nor is there
any element of an incurably prejudicial delay.
The defendants characterized the governmental
attempt at compliance with this court's order in the following language:
Discovery after the court order of
October 16, 1973, and before trial, can be characterized as delayed, painfully
guarded, intentionally obscure and unresponsive in general. The most significant
evidence was "discovered" only after the defendants had proof or strong
hints of its existence. Initiative for compliance with the order on behalf
of the government was almost non-existent. Defendants' brief at 96.
Thus, more than complaining about the
government's dilatory production of specific pieces of evidence, the defendants
charge the government with an obstructionist attitude, prejudicial to the
defendants, and violative of the enlightened discovery principles set forth
in United States v. Bryant, 142 U.S. App. D.C. 132, 439 F.2d 642 (1971):
These cases point up an anomaly of
our criminal process: controlled by rules of law protecting adversary rights
and procedures at some stages, the process at other stages is thoroughly
unstructured. Beside the carefully safeguarded fairness of the courtroom
is a dark no-man's land of unreviewed bureaucratic and discretionary decision
making. Too often, what the process purports to secure in its formal stages
can be subverted or diluted in its more informal stages. . . .
The right at stake in the cases before
us is defendant's discovery of evidence gathered by the government, evidence
whose disclosure to defense counsel would make the trial more a "quest
for truth" than a "sporting event." Id. at 644.
The purpose of the duty is not simply
to correct an imbalance of advantage, whereby the prosecution may surprise
the defense at trial with new evidence; rather, it is also to make of the
trial a search for truth informed by all relevant material, much of which,
because of imbalance in investigative resources, will be exclusively in
the hands of the government. Id. at 648.
This court is in hearty agreement with
the principles and purposes set forth in Bryant. What is more, this
court is in partial agreement with the defendants' characterization of
the government's compliance with the discovery order. This court agrees
that the government's response has been dilatory, and that initiative for
compliance with the order on behalf of the government was considerably
weaker than it should have been. This court refuses to conclude, however,
that non-compliance sprang from any bad faith on the part of the prosecutor
or the FBI. The dilatory compliance, rather, was the result of three factors:
(1) the negligent failure of the prosecutor to fully comprehend the importance
and the extent of his responsibilities with regard to discovery; (2) the
voluminousness of the files required to be searched in pursuit of discoverable
material; and, (3) the negligence of the FBI and other law enforcement
organizations in making the search.
On March 6, 1974, Assistant United
States Attorney Hurd conceded to the court that he had never examined any
of the FBI files but had simply [F. Supp. 330] asked the FBI to
make available those things which the FBI thought discoverable under the
court's order. Given the necessarily broad language of the discovery order,
given the voluminousness of the files, and given the comparative unfamiliarity
of the FBI agents with the intricacies of the case, this failure of the
prosecutor to search the files evidences a serious underestimation of his
responsibility to assure the production of discoverable material. Assistant
United States Attorney David Gienapp testified that he had doubted that
full discovery was possible since November or December of 1973. His failure
to apprise the defendants and the court of that fact evidences a like underestimation.
There can be no division of function between the forces of the prosecution
and the forces of the investigative agencies when it comes to assuring
that the defendant is provided with all materials to which he is entitled.
Not only does the prosecutor assume the responsibility of seeing to
it that the court's discovery order is complied with, but, in light of
his specialized knowledge of the case, he must assume that function.
It is the prosecutors themselves who must personally direct a search of
the files in pursuit of discoverable material.
That does not mean, however, that the
FBI escapes reprimand with respect to discovery procedures in this case.
Indeed this transcript proliferates with what this court concludes to be
negligent and impedimentary conduct of the FBI in complying with the discovery
order. The following are the specific instances of such misconduct: (1)
at an initial discovery session, the FBI refused to provide defense counsel
with an inventory list of the property to be examined, which list contained
the details of the recovery of the pieces of evidence and which list was
essential to the defense counsel's attempt to get maximum benefit out of
the examination; (2) roadblock and radio transmission logs were not turned
over until specific request for them was made; the director of the Marshal's
Service had first represented that there were no Marshals' logs of intercepted
radio communications, only to have them surface through the testimony of
a deputy Marshal at trial; (3) aerial pictures were not turned over until
proof of their existence was furnished; (4) there was a delay in getting
medical lab reports to the defendants; (5) the Carter Camp letter, which
implicated Banks and Means in the conspiracy, was not turned over until
the trial was in progress; (6) the government failed to turn over a tribal
court petition and order, which petitioned that the Marshals enter the
reservation to preserve order, until the case was in progress; (7) an alleged
petition signed by a number of residents of Wounded Knee requesting that
the FBI and the Marshals refrain from attempting to drive AIM from the
reservation was withheld from defense until the matter was inadvertently
brought up during the government's case, at which time a copy was presented
to defense counsel and represented to be a copy of the original; after
a witness had testified adversely to the defendants based upon the copy,
upon which there were notations by FBI agents and others, the original
was produced, requiring further examination of the witness and an undoubtedly
confusing explanation to the jury; (8) failure to produce a number of documents
(Exhibits J, T, and U) bearing upon the existence and the fruits of electronic
surveillance.3
After the complicated incident involving the altered petition, the court
ordered the FBI's files be kept intact and permitted defense counsel and
the prosecution time to go through them. [F. Supp. 331] The search
produced 131 discoverable or arguably discoverable pieces of evidence which
had not been turned over.
The defendants have expressed a profound
mistrust toward the FBI and any procedure whereby the FBI would make the
final determination as to the discoverability of evidence. This expression
of mistrust is understandable, although I cannot bring myself to the conclusion
that the FBI has purposefully suppressed evidence. The behavior of the
FBI in this case is negligent at best. Although the FBI has had the well-deserved
reputation of being the world's most effective crime-fighting organization,
it must be remembered if our system of freedoms is to be preserved, that
the FBI must be servile to our system of justice. The FBI is an independent
crime-fighting organization which should be taking its direction, at least
in the area of domestic crime, solely from prosecuting attorneys in the
Justice Department and in the districts around the country. Implementation
of this strongly held viewpoint was undertaken in this case when I ordered
that the prosecutor be allowed to peruse the FBI informant files in search
of discoverable material. Both Attorney General Saxbe and his assistant
in charge of the Criminal Division, Henry Petersen, apparently agreed with
that court order. The FBI should be subject to the same ethical standards
as its principal, the prosecutor:
The United States Attorney is the representative
not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation
to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all;
and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it
shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar
and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which
is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with
earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike
hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his
duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful
conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just
one. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S. Ct. 629, 79 L. Ed. 1314
(1935).
The FBI in this case failed as a "servant
of the law." The many revelations of Bureau negligence, or Bureau dilatoriness
have brought this court to the brink of dismissing this case. I must conclude,
however, that, although they may have been careless, the FBI failures to
comply with the discovery order was not purposeful. What is more, they
have not acted toward the irremedial prejudice of the defendants' case.
It is yet early in the trial. The government has not yet completed one-fifth
of its intended witnesses. The defendants should now or soon be in possession
of all discoverable materials in the possession of the FBI. This court,
four weeks ago, ordered an extensive search of the FBI files for all discoverable
material. Hopefully, that search will be close to completion by the time
this trial resumes. It must also be remembered that the defendants, if
they are dissatisfied with the governmental compliance, may move for a
dismissal or a mistrial at any further stage of the proceeding.
It is therefore the order of this court,
pursuant to the Rule 16(g) of F.R. Crim. Pr., that the search of the FBI
files continue for the next eleven days while this trial is in recess and
for as long thereafter as is necessary to complete the search, and that
the government permit the discovery or inspection of discoverable materials
not previously disclosed. It is also ordered that the government is prohibited
from introducing any material which is discoverable under Rule 16 and which
the government has failed to turn over prior to March 8, 1974.
POINT III -- OVERHEARING OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT
CONVERSATIONS
The defendants charge that the government
utilized the telephone at roadblock one to surreptitiously monitor telephonic
[F.
Supp. 332] conversations between the occupants of Wounded Knee and
their lawyers. It must first be pointed out that there was no direct evidence
that anyone overheard a lawyer-client conversation. If those overhearings
did occur, they were not revealed by the responses to the teletypes disseminated
by the FBI, and no record found thus far has preserved those conversations.
Thus, unless we can imply either that there was regular monitoring or that
other reports of periodic monitoring were destroyed or kept from the courts,
it must be concluded that there was no overhearings of lawyer-client conversations.
Even if it can be concluded that there
were overhearings, there must be some showing that the defense was prejudiced.
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S. Ct. 408, 17 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1966);
United States v. Zarzour, 432 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1970). The fact situation
in Zarzour is far more exacerbated than that in the instant case. The
defendant was arrested for bank robbery. Defense counsel hired a legal
investigator who also was in the employ of the FBI, apparently a willing
double agent. Testimony at an evidentiary hearing established that Wilder
(the informant) had turned over information to the FBI relating to the
bank robbery, but he denied turning over any information concerning the
defense of the case. The prosecutor testified that he received no information
from Wilder, and that he did not even know about his employment. The FBI
agent in charge of the investigation testified that he never told the government
about Wilder's activities. Wilder testified that he in no way acted on
behalf of the government regarding appellant Zarzour's trial. The trial
court was directed to take the same steps which this court has already
taken to assure himself that there was no prejudice:
In the case sub judice the district
court must determine whether there were any disclosures by the FBI to the
government prosecutors and whether any information passed between Wilder
and the FBI. To accomplish this fairly, the district judge is directed
to conduct an in camera examination of the FBI informant files on Wilder,
but only concerning his dealings between the date of the robbery of the
. . . Bank . . . and the time of . . . trial. . . . A determination can
be made by examining all written memoranda in the files as to whether the
government obtained any evidence through the employment of Wilder concerning
appellant or the key witnesses in his case, and whether there was any interference
with his Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and an adversary proceeding.
Id. at 4.
There has been no indication in the
case before this court that the prosecution or the FBI has had access to
any information derived from monitorings of lawyer-client conversations.
The defendants cite the cases of Black
v. United States, 385 U.S. 26, 87 S. Ct. 190, 17 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1966) (accused's
hotel room was monitored during grand jury investigation), O'Brien v. United
States, 386 U.S. 345, 87 S. Ct. 1158, 18 L. Ed. 2d 94 (1967) (a listening
device was planted in the business establishment of an acquaintance of
the accused after indictment), Caldwell v. United States, 92 U.S. App.
D.C. 355, 205 F.2d 879 (1953), and Coplon v. United States, 89 U.S. App.
D.C. 103, 191 F.2d 749 (1951) (interceptions of telephone conversations
between accused and counsel before and during trial), for the proposition
that, where there is gross misconduct on the part of government, the defendant
need not prove that the overhearings prejudiced his defense. Even if those
cases can be cited for that proposition, this court cannot conclude that
the placing of the phone at the roadblock, the periodic monitorings, and
the negligence of the government in failing to apprise the court and the
defense of these monitorings constitute the "gross misconduct" which defendants
contend to be the deciding factor in [F. Supp. 333] those cases.
I cannot conclude that the phone was installed for the purpose of intercepting
attorney-client conversations, nor can I conclude that it was used for
that purpose. I think the government has met its burden of proving (1)
that there were no overhearings of attorney-client phone calls; (2) that,
if there were such overhearings, the prosecution did not have access to
the information thus acquired, and (3) that there was no gross governmental
misconduct.
POINT IV -- GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT
AND DISHONESTY
The fourth area of allegations contained
in defendant's Motion to Dismiss is an all-encompassing one. It embraces
the allegations of illegal wiretapping, interception of attorney-client
conversations, failure to comply with the discovery order, and official
governmental dishonesty: It is the contention of the defendants that the
combination of these factors has raised the level of government misconduct
to such a point that it would be unconscionable to allow the government
to proceed and that it has irretrievably prejudiced the right of the defendants
to a fair trial.
This fourth ground is the most difficult
with which to deal. Rather than involving a specific instance of misconduct
such as an illegal search and seizure, for which the exclusionary remedy
is sufficient, it allegedly involves repeated instances of governmental
misconduct which permeate the case and make it impossible for the defendants
to get a fair trial. It involves instances of governmental misconduct,
which, standing each by itself, would not warrant outright dismissal, but
which, standing together, allegedly evidence the kind of intentional and
inherent governmental obstructionism which will now, and in the future,
prevent the defendants from getting a fair trial.
The case upon which defendants primarily
rely is Ellsberg v. United States. Having reviewed the transcript of Judge
Byrne's oral opinion and having read the defendants' briefs and researched
the cases cited therein, I must conclude that the governmental misconduct
in the instant case does not stoop nearly to the depths of that in Ellsberg.
The disclosure of the burgling of Daniel
Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office by the CIA-equipped, presidentially-inspired
special unit was only the final assault upon the judicial process in a
case which was littered with such outrageousness.4
The government had time and time again failed to make timely production
of exculpatory information, causing delays and disruptions of the trial.
After both sides had rested their cases, the government disclosed that
there had been electronic surveillance. It was impossible to learn how
much surveillance existed or what information was discovered by its use.
Logs, tapes, records, and authorizations for the wiretaps had either never
existed or had been lost (apparently Judge Byrne's opinion and Mr. Kunstler's
recollection conflict on this point). Although not mentioned in Judge Byrne's
opinion, the defendants' brief alleged the electronic surveillance of journalists
the records of which had been destroyed. The brief also alleges electronic
surveillance of lawyer-client and lawyer-defense witness conversations.
In the face of this misconduct, Judge Byrne concluded that he was powerless
to give the defendants a fair trial, at that time or at any time in the
reasonable future.5
[F. Supp. 334] In the
case before this court, it cannot be said that the governmental misconduct
has "incurably infected" the prosecution of this case. First, there are
ways in which we can test for and eliminate the effect of the interceptions
upon the government's case. Although deserving reprimand for the way in
which they worded the teletypes,6
the FBI canvassed the agents who were positioned at the roadblock and elicited
whatever information they may have intercepted. The FBI, admittedly at
a late date, produced memoranda submitted by those agents reflecting the
conversations which they overheard. None of those records have been lost
or destroyed. They were in the FBI files and were produced when the question
arose at trial. All of those agents who responded affirmatively to the
teletype took the stand and submitted themselves to cross-examination.
Any evidence intercepted by them is hereby suppressed. It must be emphasized
that this court is not forced to contend with a situation where the government
reveals surreptitious wiretapping after both sides have rested, no matter
how fortuitous that circumstance may be. The revelation has been elicited
at an early point in the trial. If nondisclosure was part of a purposeful
attempt to obstruct the judicial process, we would have a different question,
but I do not think that conclusion is warranted.
The defendants point to a number of
instances of alleged governmental dishonesty and obstructionism which,
they contend, warrant dismissal.
Joseph Trimbach, the Special Agent
in charge of the Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota division of the
FBI, made specific assurances to this court that there were no wiretaps
at Wounded Knee, legal or illegal. He also testified that he had neither
seen nor signed an affidavit supporting a request for a judicial wiretap
authorization. All these statements were untrue. This court accepts, however,
Mr. Trimbach's explanation that events were so much in control of men at
Wounded Knee, that he had forgotten both about the phone at roadblock one
and about the wiretap authorization affidavit.
Defendants point to what they contend
to be purposeful attempts to keep Trimbach's impeaching affidavit from
the defense.7
In light of the utter stupidity which such a purposeful attempt would require,
I cannot conclude that the attempt was purposeful. Assistant United States
Attorney Hurd had admitted to the court and counsel at the inception of
this hearing that a wiretap authorization attempt had been considered.
Whether or not Trimbach signed an affidavit [F. Supp. 335] has such
minimal bearing upon the issues, and his explanation that he had forgotten
that he had signed it amidst the confusion of marshalling a small army
has so much the sound of truth, that there would be no sense in trying
to cover up the Trimbach affidavit. Despite the suspicious nature of the
events leading to the affidavit's disclosure, I must conclude that there
was no purposeful attempt to keep the Trimbach affidavit from the court.
Defendants contend that the FBI demonstrated
its hostile attitude when, at the discovery conferences of March 9 and
12, 1974, the agents denied the existence of any portion of the general
Wounded Knee file which the defense counsel had not seen. That misunderstanding
might have been caused by some confusion about the court's order. This
court excepted all internal FBI memoranda and documents from the purview
of both discovery orders. It was in this context, I think, that the agents
made their representations.
The defendants point to numerous instances
where either the Justice Department, the FBI, or the Marshal's service
represented to the United States Attorneys and the defendants' counsel
that certain discoverable materials were not in existence. As I set forth
in the portion of this opinion dedicated to discovery violations, I would
attribute those misrepresentations to negligence, and not to any purposeful
intention. The same is true of the representations of the United States
Attorney to this court that there were no paid informants prior to the
takeover at Wounded Knee.
One disturbing defense allegation,
touched on before, deals with the wording of the teletype which went to
all FBI regional offices. Contradictions between the contents of some of
the affirmative responses and the testimony of those responding agents
in court would indicate that the wording might indeed have had an intimidating
effect. The wording is regrettable and deserving of reprimand. But the
totality of the testimony convinces me that the entire story on the extent
of monitoring was brought out at the hearing.
Defendants have moved for an order
to show cause why Joseph Trimbach, Herbert Hoxie and Ray Gammon, special
agents of the FBI, should not be cited for contempt for willful disobedience
of court orders. Whatever disobedience may have been committed was not
willful. The motion is hereby denied. Defendants also moved that the above
named together with other named and unnamed FBI agents be referred to the
United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota and South Dakota for
investigation of charges of violations of the Sioux Treaty of 1868. This
court has no jurisdiction to make that referral. The motion is hereby denied.
SUMMARY
I want to point out that this case
is still in its nascent stages. I have detailed what I feel to be incidents
of conspicuous and repeated negligence on the part of the government. Although
I am constrained not to dismiss the case at this point, the government
should be forewarned that this court will continue to be acutely aware
of its compliance, or lack thereof, with this court's discovery order and
with the rules of law. The words of Justice Brandeis will not be forgotten
by this court:
Decency, security, and liberty alike
demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of
conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence
of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for
ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If
the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites
every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare
that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means
-- to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to [F.
Supp. 336] secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring
terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should
resolutely set its face. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485,
48 S. Ct. 564, 575, 72 L. Ed. 944 (1928) (Brandeis, dissenting).
If further misconduct occurs on the
part of the government, I would certainly consider a renewed motion by
the defendants. It is my deepest hope and expectation that such a renewal
shall not be necessary.
1 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510(5) states as
follows: "electronic, mechanical, or other device" means any device or
apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire or oral communication other
than --
(a) any telephone or telegraph instrument,
equipment, or facility, or any component thereof, (i) furnished to the
subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course
of its business and being used by the subscriber in the ordinary course
of its business. . . .
2 Even when evidence is lost or destroyed,
even when its benefits are denied the defendants forever, which is not
the case here, the drastic sanction of dismissal does not flow automatically.
Outright dismissal is justified in two instances: (1) where the government
fails in its heavy burden of proving that it made earnest efforts to preserve
the evidence, United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 89 S. Ct. 528,
21 L. Ed. 2d 537 (1968), United States v. Bryant, 142 U.S. App. D.C. 132,
439 F.2d 642 (1971); and (2) where the lost evidence is so vital to the
defense of the case that a fair trial is impossible without it. United
States v. Heath, 260 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1958).
3 With regard to the existence of electronic
surveillance, it might be pointed out that this entire hearing might not
have taken place had it not been for the fact that Mark Lane, on February
18, 1974, while waiting to testify before the Grand Jury in Deadwood which
was investigating the death of Pedro Bissonette, had a chance conversation
with Joseph Pourier during which the phone installation was revealed.
4 An example of the arrogant ruthlessness
with which Ellsberg and Russo were pursued by the Executive branch is an
absolutely outrageous episode which occurred during the pendency of the
trial. Judge Byrne was invited to the summer home of President Nixon at
San Clemente, where John Erlichman, a special assistant to the president,
broached to him the possibility of an appointment to the directorship of
the FBI.
5 "There is no way the defendant or
the Court, or indeed, the government itself can test what effect these
interceptions may have had on the government's case here against either
or both of the defendants. . . . Moreover, no investigation is likely to
provide satisfactory answers where improper government conduct has been
shielded so long from the public view and where the government advises
the Court that pertinent files and records are missing or destroyed. (T.
22,689).
The totality of the circumstances of
this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice.
The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."
6 In that teletype sent out by the
FBI on March 13, 1974, it is twice pointed out to the agents that their
responses could provide the basis for a Motion to Dismiss. It is pointed
out once in the prefatory material, and again after the questions relating
to the roadblock are posed.
7 The following are the circumstances
leading the defense to the conclusion that there was a purposeful attempt:
(1) the FBI knew about the Parker activities and affidavit (Parker's activities
culminated in a wiretapping authorization request subsequent to that supported
by the Trimbach affidavit) at least since March 13, 1974, implying that
they knew also of Trimbach's affidavit; (2) the Trimbach affidavit was
found in the FBI files on March 13 or 14, 1974, pursuant to this court's
subpoena for all wiretap information, but, allegedly due to a clerk's miscue,
only page two which was unsigned and did not contain Trimbach's name, was
forwarded to the prosecutors; (3) there were repeated delays to the defense
acquisition of Parker's response to a special teletype sent him on March
13, 1974, inquiring about the wiretap authorization.
| Copyright
© 1999-2000 Jurisline.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |
| Terms
of Service | Privacy Statement |