In the Matter of Rockney Lee Reed, a Witness Before the Special Grand Jury v. United States

448 F.2d 1276, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8514
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 16, 1971
Docket71-2183
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 448 F.2d 1276 (In the Matter of Rockney Lee Reed, a Witness Before the Special Grand Jury v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Matter of Rockney Lee Reed, a Witness Before the Special Grand Jury v. United States, 448 F.2d 1276, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8514 (9th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a district court order adjudging Roekney Lee Reed to be in civil contempt for refusing to obey a district court order requiring him to testify before a special grand jury. Reed contends that questions propounded to him were based upon information obtained as a result of illegal wiretapping and that he was accordingly entitled to an order suppressing such information and entitled to refuse to testify. We affirm.

On this appeal, Reed’s arguments are based upon 18 U.S.C. §§ 2515 and 2518(10) (a), and upon the Fourth Amendment. In our opinion, all of Reed’s arguments are precluded by the specific holdings, or the necessary implications, of the decisions of this court in United States v. Gelbard and United States v. Parnas, 443 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1971); In re Bacon v. United States, 446 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1971), and Olsen v. United States, 446 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1971), relating to standing.

We decline to re-examine those decisions for the reason that this could only be done in banc, and the time allowed us under 28 U.S.C. § 1826 to decide this appeal will not permit this to be done. See In re Charleston v. United States, In re Herlicy v. United States, 444 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1971).

Counsel for appellant advised us at oral argument that in the event of af-firmance he would apply for a writ of certiorari. Issuance of the mandate herein is therefore stayed thirty days to enable appellant to apply for a writ of certiorari. If a timely application for such a writ is filed, the stay shall remain in effect until the application has been denied, or, if granted, until the cause has been determined by the Supreme Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
448 F.2d 1276, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-rockney-lee-reed-a-witness-before-the-special-grand-jury-ca9-1971.