Roberts v. United States

389 U.S. 18, 88 S. Ct. 1, 19 L. Ed. 2d 18, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2962
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 16, 1967·No. 330·Published·Cited by 24 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition for certiorari is granted. Petitioner’s conviction is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In proceedings before the Court of Appeals pursuant to our previous remand, Levine v. United States, 383 U. S. 266, the Court of Appeals granted petitioner’s co-defendant Levine a new trial based upon a disclosure by the Government that, after the return of the indictment, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored conversations between Levine and Levine’s attorney. But the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for the same relief or, alternatively, for a remand to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing to deter *19 mine whether he was prejudiced by the monitoring; the Court of Appeals stated, however, that the motion was denied “without prejudice to such application by him to the District Court as may be appropriate.” In the circumstances of this case, and in light of the acknowledgment of the Solicitor General in his brief in opposition that “the F. B. I. logs pertaining to the monitored conversations” are available, we think the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner’s alternative motion for an evidentiary hearing in the District Court. We therefore vacate petitioner’s conviction and remand to the District Court with direction to afford petitioner such an evidentiary hearing. Depending upon its findings, the District Court will either reinstate the conviction or order a new trial, as may be appropriate. See United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 242.

Vacated and remanded.

Mr. Justice Black dissents. Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Roberts v. United States, 389 U.S. 18, 88 S. Ct. 1, 19 L. Ed. 2d 18, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2962 (1967).

389 U.S. 18 (Roberts v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Rufes
Superior Court of Guam, 2024
State v. Hawkins
2023 Ohio 3728 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
United States v. Jermel Lewis
802 F.3d 449 (Third Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Carrascal-Olivera
755 F.2d 1432 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Wilfren Carrascal-Olivera
755 F.2d 1446 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Anthony Dilapi and Benjamin Ladmer
651 F.2d 140 (Second Circuit, 1981)
Dilley v. Alexander
627 F.2d 407 (D.C. Circuit, 1980)
Fajeriak v. State
520 P.2d 795 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1974)
In the Interest of J. R. M.
487 S.W.2d 502 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1972)
In Re JRM
487 S.W.2d 502 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1972)
Robert Grene v. United States
460 F.2d 580 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Robert Grene and Norman Gradsky
455 F.2d 376 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
State Ex Rel. Cole v. Nigro
471 S.W.2d 933 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1971)
State v. Witherspoon
460 S.W.2d 281 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1970)
Duisen v. State
441 S.W.2d 688 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1969)
Gerberding v. State
433 S.W.2d 820 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1968)
Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City
432 S.W.2d 328 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1968)