UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DC CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES
v.
LIDDY, GEORGE GORDON
* * *
No. 73-1020a
March 06, 1998
* * *
Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, SILBERMAN and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM: This cause came before us on petitions seeking clarification of the court's unpublished Order of January 19, 1973. See United States v. Liddy, No. 73-1020 (D.C. Cir. January 19, 1973), rev'g in part United States v. Liddy, 354 F. Supp. 217, 221 (D.D.C. 1973); see also United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428, 446 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (referring to unpublished Order). The Order prohibited admission of evi- dence as to the contents of telephone conversations at Demo- cratic National Committee Headquarters intercepted in May and June 1972 under the direction of G. Gordon Liddy.
The court has determined that there is no question before it suitable for adjudication. The petitions concern the current effect of the Order. The language of that Order clearly indicates that it was a suppression order, the scope of which was coterminous with the scope of the evidence-barring provi- sion of the wiretapping statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2515. As a suppression order, the Order was applicable only to the criminal trial of United States v. Liddy, Crim. No. 1827-72 (D.D.C. 1973), aff'd, United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974), and was not binding in any other proceed-
ing. There is therefore no issue relating to the Order properly before the court.
In reaching this judgment, we in no way suggest that disclosure of the matters in question here would be permissi- ble in any context under the terms of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2511 and 2515; nor do we mean to decide whether cross-petitioner Liddy has standing even to seek disclosure of the matters in question. These issues are not properly before us and we offer no opinion on them.
Petitions Denied.
Footnotes
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued February 19, 1998 Decided March 6, 1998
No. 73-1020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
v.
GEORGE GORDON LIDDY AND IDA MAXWELL WELLS, PETITIONERS
ROBERT SPENCER OLIVER, ET AL., APPELLEES
On Petition and Cross-Petition to Vacate 1973 Order (No. 72cr1827)
John W. Williams argued the cause for cross-petitioner George Gordon Liddy, with whom Ty Cobb was on the briefs.
David J. Branson argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner Ida Maxwell Wells.
Elizabeth Trosman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee United States of America, with whom Mary Lou Leary, U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and John R. Fisher, Assistant U.S. Attorney, were on the brief.
R.C. Slagle, III, pro hac vice, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellee Robert Spencer Oliver.
Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, SILBERMAN and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM: This cause came before us on petitions seeking clarification of the court's unpublished Order of January 19, 1973. See United States v. Liddy, No. 73-1020 (D.C. Cir. January 19, 1973), rev'g in part United States v. Liddy, 354 F. Supp. 217, 221 (D.D.C. 1973); see also United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428, 446 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (referring to unpublished Order). The Order prohibited admission of evi- dence as to the contents of telephone conversations at Demo- cratic National Committee Headquarters intercepted in May and June 1972 under the direction of G. Gordon Liddy.
The court has determined that there is no question before it suitable for adjudication. The petitions concern the current effect of the Order. The language of that Order clearly indicates that it was a suppression order, the scope of which was coterminous with the scope of the evidence-barring provi- sion of the wiretapping statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2515. As a suppression order, the Order was applicable only to the criminal trial of United States v. Liddy, Crim. No. 1827-72 (D.D.C. 1973), aff'd, United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974), and was not binding in any other proceed-
ing. There is therefore no issue relating to the Order properly before the court.
In reaching this judgment, we in no way suggest that disclosure of the matters in question here would be permissi- ble in any context under the terms of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2511 and 2515; nor do we mean to decide whether cross-petitioner Liddy has standing even to seek disclosure of the matters in question. These issues are not properly before us and we offer no opinion on them.
Petitions Denied.
Footnotes
CASE STATISTICSCASES: 509 F.2d 428; 354 F. Supp. 217;
STATUTES: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2515;
© Silicon Gulch 1999-2002
No Claim to Original Govt. Works