# Opposition — Edelson v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2037%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition
- **Published:** January 1, 1979
- **Citation:** 440 U.S. 908

## Text

FILED
No.78-779 |} JAN 40 1979

|_MICHAEL RODAK, JR., CLERK

Iu the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1978

‘MITCHELL EDELSON, JR., PETITIONER
Vv.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERT: 9ORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

WADE H. McCREE, JR.
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

eee
la Supreme Court, U. §,

Page
St TE 1
EESTI ES Nia 0 dn a 1
Questions presented -.............-...--:c-eeeceeeeeeeeeeeees 2
El gt a ee 2
EEG EISSN Se, Sa 5
I ctinnion 11
CITATIONS
Cases:
Alvarez, In re, 351 F. Supp. 1089 ............ 7
Bast v. United States, 542 F.2d 898 ........ 7
Berenyi v. Immigration Director, 385 U.S.

REESE: ESSE (Se 11
Biaggi, In re, 478 F.2d 489 ...........20..22-220-+- 7
Bianchi, In re, 542 F.2d 98 ............2.22---.-- 7
Bonanno, In re, 344 F.2d 880 .................... 7
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359...... 9
Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 856 ...... 9
Grand Jury Witness Subpoenas, In re,

ae 7
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87...... 6
Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 389 ...... 9
Markham vy. United States, 160 U.S. 319.. 5
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United

States, 360 U.S. 396 ............................... 8
Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749...... 5
Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263.... 5,10

United States v. Bernstein, 583 F.2d 775,

cert. denied, 429 U.S. 998 ....0..00.0.ccecee. 6
United States v. Bitter, 374 F.2d 744 ...... 9
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338.. 9

II

Cases—Continued Nias Iu the Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Clavey, 565 F.2d 111, OcTOBER TERM, 1978

aff'd en bane by an equally divided
court, 578 F. 2d 1219, cert. denied,

No. 78-120 (Nov. 6, 1978) ...........0c000000- 7
United States v. Crippen, 570 F.2d 585, No. 78-779
cert. denied, No. 78-5388 (Jan. 8,

REE AE ne Hes ne ee 5 MITCHELL EDELSON, JR., PETITIONER
United States v. Crocker, 568 F.2d 1049.. 5
United States v. Damato, 554 F.2d 1871.. ‘10 | bs
United States v. Davis, 548 F.2d 840........ 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656.. 8
United States v. Devitt, 499 F.2d 135...... 6

United States v. Fitch, 472 F.2d 548, cert.

T OF CERTIORARI TO THE
denied, 412 U.S. 954 0... eeceeseeesecnneens 7 ON PUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
GUTS sictasinicichitcvns sctadeipensecdadebiiondacataaioiddastiencenaesa 8
United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189...... 10
“—e oo v. Procter & Gambie,"056 ° BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
United States v. Roethe, 418 F. Supp.
A TNE, scscatbicsntsbasliamaiadehiasctaitidas ins ta aia 10
United States v. Rook, 424 F.2d 403, cert. OPINIONS BELOW
denied, 398 U.S. 966 .................cccccccceeeee 6 er
United States v. Slawik, 548 F.2d 75 ...... 6 The oral opinion of the district court (C.A. App.
United States v. Wortman, 26 F.R.D. 5-11) is unreported. The opinion of the court of ap-
NIT Gicckaiclasissscetiencubadaidinialpivecnutiap sania waebinieie 10 peals (Pet. App. 1-7) is reported at 581 F.2d 1290.
Statutes: | The opinion of the court of appeals denying rehearing
(Pet. App. 8) is unreported.
BT, WEE Aadcnesdepicenhogecticencaamameatie. 2 |
Be SP as RIED ds cescontnssontenstcceminennedinionians 7 JURISDICTION
Rule: The judgment of the court of appeals was entered
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a) (1) (A) ceecceceesoeene- 7 on August 30, 1978. A petition for rehearing was

(1)

2

denied on October 13, 1978. The petition for a writ
of certiorari was filed on November 10, 1978. The
jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.
1254(1).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the indictment sufficiently alleged that
petitioner’s false statements were material to the
grand jury’s investigation.

2. Whether prior to indictment petitioner was en-
titled to a copy of his grand jury testimony without
demonstrating a particularized need for that testi-
mony.

3. Whether petitioner demonstrated a compelling
necessity for the disclosure of the grand jury pro-
ceedings.

4, Whether the government sufficiently established
the materiality and falsity of petitioner’s perjury.

STATEMENT

Following a bench trial in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of Illinois, peti-
tioner was convicted of making false declarations
before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1623.’
Petitioner received a one-year sentence of imprison-
ment. In a per curiam opinion, the court of appeals
affirmed (Pet. App. 1-7).

This case arises out of petitioner’s testimony be-
fore a special grand jury investigating the interstate

1 The indictment charged petitioner with making four false
statements to the grand jury. The district court acquitted
petitioner with regard to two of those false declarations.
(C.A. App. 9-11).

3

transportation of stolen goods, stolen securities, and
counterfeit currency in May 1975. At that time,
petitioner, who was a practicing attorney in Chicago,
denied having ever told Roger Camp that Vito Nicasio
would not bring stolen goods and securities across
state lines or having ever agreed with Camp to ar-
range a safe (non-bugged) place to exchange the
stolen items (Pet. App. 5-6; C.A. App. 10-11; Gov’t
Exh. 2):

Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Camp that Mr. Nicasio
would be hesitant about bringing merchan-
dise, securities, or any type of property what-
soever across state lines, or that he was not
going to cross the state lines with the mer-
chandise or property?

A. I did not say such a thing to Mr. Camp.

Q. Did you ever agree with Roger Camp to make
arrangements for the exchange of said mer-
chandise, whatever it may be, in a place out-
side your office that “would not and could not
be bugged?”

A. No, I did suggest a place outside my office.
I suggested they go to the American National
Bank.

However, the evidence at trial established that
Camp, who was a government informant, had dis-
cussed with petitioner the very matters that petitioner
had denied discussing in his grand jury testimony. In
particular, the government introduced seven tape re-
corded conversations between Camp and petitioner
(Pet. App. 1-2, 6; C.A. App. 7-11; Gov’t Exhs. 3, 5-7,

4

3T1, 3T2, 5T, 6T1, 6T2, 7T1, 7T2). These recordings,
which were corroborated by testimony from various
government agents and informants including Camp
(e.g., Tr. 143-147, 213, 227-232, 263-281, 690-706,
1269-1274, 1283-1284), contained the following pas-
sages (Pet. App. 6):

Edelson: “But he [Nicasio] is not coming to
Chicago, I’ll tell you that right now, he’s not go-
ing to cross the state line with it. You have to go
there. But I’m telling you right now there is no
way in hell he’s going to transport this stuff.”

* * * *

Edelson: ‘He [Nicasio] is thinking over how
he can handle it without taking the danger of
doing anything in the mail or having anything
on his person when he crosses the state line.”

* * & *

Camp: “Well I assume that where we’re go-
ing to do it is your office, right?”

Edelson: ‘Probably not.”

Camp: “Probably not, okay. But I’m a little
leery myself, I understand the nature of the
merchandise, it’s a little warm, but which doesn’t
constitute a problem but I want to be as cautious
as the next guy, okay?”

Edelson: “You want me to make sure that
the arrangements are made, that the meeting
takes place in a place that will not and cannot
be bugged.”

Camp: “Yeah.”

Edelson: ‘Alright, that’s simple. Good-bye.”

5

ARGUMENT

1. Petitioner contends (Pet. 11-13) that the indict-
ment upon which he was convicted insufficiently al-
leged the materiality of his perjury. But the in-
dictment averred that petitioner’s perjurious state-
ments concerning his knowledge of the planned inter-
state shipment and transfer of stolen securities in the
possession of Vito Nicasio were material “for the
Grand Jury to determine whether [petitioner] had
ever acted as a go-between for Roger Camp and Vito
Nicasio in making arrangements for the sale of stolen
securities or counterfeit United States currency”
(Pet. App. 18). The indictment further stated that
the grand jury before which petitioner falsely testi-
fied was investigating the transportation, sale, and
receipt of stolen securities and counterfeit currency
(Pet. App. 17).

Such specific and detailed allegaiions of materiality
more than satisfy the minimal pleading recuirements
established long ago by this Court with regard to per-
jury indictments. See Markham v. United States,
160 U.S. 319, 324-825 (1895); accord, Russell v.
United States, 369 U.S. 749, 755-756 (1962); Sin-
clair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 296-297 (1929) ;
United States v. Crippen, 570 F.2d 535 (5th Cir.
1978), cert. denied, No. 78-588 (Jan. 8, 1979) ; United
States v. Crocker, 568 F.2d 1049, 1056-1057 (8d Cir.
1977); United States v. Davis, 548 F.2d 840, 845

6

(9th Cir. 1977) ; United States v. Bernstein, 533 F.2d
775, 786 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 998 (1976) ;
United States v. Rook, 424 F.2d 408, 405 (7th Cir.),
cert. denied, 398 U.S. 966 (1970).* In sum, because
this indictment enabled petitioner to prepare a de-
fense to the specific charges while adequaiely protect-
ing him from future prosecutions for the same offense,
both courts below correctly rejected petitioner’s argu-
ment on this point (Pet. App. 7). See Hamling v.
United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974).

2. Petitioner further contends (Pet. 13-15) that
he was automatically entitled to a copy of his grand
jury testimony prior to his indictment. This claim
is predicated solely on petitioner’s verbal request (that
he receive a transcript of the proceedings), made to the
Assistant United States Attorney during petitioner’s

* Petitioner notes (Pet. 11-13) that the Third Circuit may
mandate more factual specificity in an indictment than is re-
quired by this Court and the other courts of appeals. See
United States v. Slawik, 548 F.2d 75 (8d Cir. 1977) ; but see
United States v. Crocker, supra. Review of this alleged con-
flict is unwarranted since, in any event, the indictment at
issue here “set[s] forth the precise falsehood alleged and the
factual basis of its falsity with sufficient clarity to permit a
jury to determine its verity and to allow meaningful judicial
review of the materiality of those falsehoods.” United States
v. Slawik, supra, 648 F.2d at 88. As the court of appeals cor-
rectly concluded (Pet. App. 7), petitioner’s false statemenis
about the transportation and exchange of Nicasio’s stolen
securities certainly tended to impede the grand jury’s investi-
gation of those activities. See United States v. Devitt, 499
F.2d 185 (7th Cir. 1974).

25

7

testimony to the grand jury (Pet. 14).* But the
courts of appeals have unanimously held that a wit-
ness who seeks a transcript of his own grand jury
testimony prior to indictment must demonstrate with
particularity a compelling necessity for the disclosure.
See, e.g., United States v. Clavey, 565 F.2d 111 (7th
Cir. 1977), aff’d en bane by an equally divided court,
578 F.2d 1219 (1978), cert. denied, No. 78-120 (Nov.
6, 1978); Bast v. United States, 542 F.2d 8938, 896
(4th Cir. 1976) ; In re Bianchi, 542 F.2d 98, 100 (1st
Cir. 1976) ; United States v. Fitch, 472 F.2d 548, 549
n.6 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 954 (1973). See
also In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d 489, 494 (2d Cir. 1973) ;
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) (disclosure of tran-
scripts after indictment).* And petitioner’s unsup-
ported verbal request for his grand jury testimony
fell far short of meeting that stringent standard.
E.g., United States v. Clavey, supra (failing memory
and alleged desire to recant under 18 U.S.C. 1623(d)

‘ Petitioner was, of course, given a copy of his testimony
after his indictment. Thus, the earlier rejection of his request
did not affect petitioner’s defense at trial. Moreover, peti-
tioner never indicated in the five months between his testi-
mony and his indictment that he sought to recant (see 18
U.S.C. 1628 (d)), so that production of the transcript was not
even arguably justified. See United States v. Clavey, 565 F.2d
111 (7th Cir. 1977), aff’d en banc by an equally divided court,
578 F.2d 1219 (1978), cert. denied, No. 78-120 (Nov. 6, 1978).

‘Sound policy reasons, including protection of the grand
jury process from coordinated perjury and protection of grand
jury witnesses, support this rule. See Jn re Bonanno, 344 F.2d
880, 834 (2d Cir. 1965) ; In re Grand Jury Witness Subpoenas,
370 F. Supp. 1282, 1284 (S.D. Fla. 1974) ; In re Alvarez, 351
F. Supp. 1089 (S.D. Cal. 1972).

8

held insufficient to overcome presumption in favor of
grand jury secrecy).°

8. Similarly, petitioner’s contention (Pet. 24-29)
that he was generally entitled to disclosure of the
complete grand jury proceedings is without merit.
As already indicated, the principle of grand jury
secrecy is well-established, and grand jury testimony
will be revealed only upon a showing of “compelling
necessity,” which “must be shown with particularity.”
United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 682
(1958) ; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States,
860 U.S. 395, 399-400 (1959). Whether such a show-
ing has been made is a matter for the trial court’s
discretion, and the standard of review is whether that
discretion has been abused. United States v. Procter
& Gamble, supra; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v.
United States, supra. No abuse of discretion occurred
here.

Although 18 months passed between petitioner’s in-
dictment and trial, petitioner did not move to inspect
the grand jury minutes (or to interview the grand
jurors) until the eve of trial. In light of the lengthy
delays already incurred, the trial judge properly re-

° Nor was the government required to disclose to petitioner
the existence of the taped conversations between petitioner and
Camp prior to petitioner’s testimony before the grand jury,
as petitioner apparently claims (Pet. 30). E.g., United States
v. Del Toro, 518 F.2d 656, 664 (2d Cir. 1975); see United
States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576-584 (1976). As both
courts below concluded (Pet. App. 4-5), petitioner was not a
target of the grand jury investigation and was not, in any
event, entitled to any special warnings or ee

9

jected petitioner’s last-minute attempt to further post-
pone his trial. More importantly, petitioner has never
sufficiently specified what particular circumstances
gave rise to a need for disclosure (see Pet. 28). Peti-
tioner did not allege that he needed the grand jury
proceedings to ensure accurate testimony from any
particular witness. Compare Dennis v. United States,
384 U.S. 855, 870 (1966). Rather, petitioner has sim-
ply speculated that improper or insufficient evidence
may have been presented to the grand jury or that the
government may have acted improperly before the
grand jury. Brief for Appellant (in the court of ap-
peals) at 47-59. However, this Court has repeatedly
stated that “an indictment valid on its face is not
subject to challenge on the ground that the grand jury
acted on the basis of inadequate or incompetent evi-
dence * * *.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S.
338, 345 (1974) ; see Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S.
539, 349 (1958) ; Costello v. United States, 350 U.S.
359, 363 (1956). And, as the court of appeals cor-
rectly concluded, petitioner’s other vague, speculative,
and unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute the
necessary showing of particularized need (Pet. App.
2). See, eg., Bast v. United States, supra; United
States v. Bitter, 374 F.2d 744, 748 (7th Cir. 1967).°

4, Petitioner also claims (Pet. 15-24) that his con-
viction was somehow unconstitutional because the

* In addition, the court of appeals noted that petitioner had
made no specific request for in camera inspection of the grand
jury minutes by the district court (Pet. App. 3).

10

only evidence establishing the materiality of his per-
jury was the transcript of his grand jury testimony
and the testimony of the Assistant United States
Attorney who conducted the grand jury proceedings.
At the outset, we note that the issue of materiality is
a question of law for the court to determine. £.g.,
Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 298-299
(1929); United States v. Damato, 554 F.2d 1371,
1373 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Percell, 526
F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1975). Here the materiality of
petitioner’s perjury was apparent from the face of
the indictment. See point 1, supra. In addition, the
Assistant United States Attorney who conducted the
grand jury proceedings at which petitioner perjured
himself testified fully concerning the grand jury’s in-
quiries into the interstate transportation of stolen
property and securities, and the materiality of peti-
tioner’s testimony thereto (Pet. App. 3, 7; Tr. 365-
468).”

* Contrary to petitioner’s conclusory allegation, the Assist-
ant United States Attorney was subject to extensive cross-
examination. Petitioner’s irrelevant and improper questions
concerning the underlying facts supporting his facially valid
indictment were properly cut off by the trial judge (Tr. 458-
469). See United States v. Calandra, supra. In addition, the
district court properly denied petitioner’s last-minute request
to interview the grand jurors and the court reporters as an
obstructive fishing expedition. See United States v. Roethe,
418 F. Supp. 1118 (E.D. Wisc. 1976) ; United States v. Wort-
man, 26 F.R.D. 188, 198 (E.D. Ill. 1960). Thereafter, peti-
tioner apparently did not attempt to subpoena the grand jury
foreman or others as witnesses for his defense.

11

Finally, insofar as petitioner argues (see Pet. 16)
that there was insufficient evidence of the falsity of
his statements, that contention is also without merit.
Petitioner testified before the grand jury that he had
never told Camp, the government’s informant, that
Nicasio would not bring the stolen securities across
state lines or that he (petitioner) would arrange a
safe place for the exchange of the stolen goods. How-
ever, as Camp’s testimony and the tapes of the con-
versations between Camp and petitioner demonstrated
beyond a reasonable doubt, petitioner had discussed
those very matters with Camp in detail (Pet. App.
5-7; C.A. App. 8-11; Gov’t Exh. 2-7, 8T1, 3T2, 5T,
6T1, 6T2, 7T1, 7T2; Tr. 692-703). Thus, the courts
below properly rejected petitioner’s argument on this
point, and their concurrent factual findings do not
warrant further review by this Court. See Berenyi v.
Immigration Director, 385 U.S. 680, 685 (1967).

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be
denied.

Respectfully submitted.

WADE H. McCREE, JR.
Solicitor General
JANUARY 1979

ov. 8. COveRnmanT paintine orrice, 1979 264373 262

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2037%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.