United States v. Liddy, George Gordon

136 F.3d 828, 329 U.S. App. D.C. 88, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3872, 1998 WL 94507
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 6, 1998
Docket73-1020
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 F.3d 828 (United States v. Liddy, George Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Liddy, George Gordon, 136 F.3d 828, 329 U.S. App. D.C. 88, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3872, 1998 WL 94507 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Opinion

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This cause came before us on petitions seeking clarification of the court’s unpublished Order of January 19, 1973.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354 F.Supp. 217, 221 (D.D.C.1973); see also United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428, 446 (D.C.Cir.1974) (referring to unpublished Order).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 evidence as to the contents of telephone conversations at Democratic 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 provision of the wiretapping statute, 18 U.S.C. § 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), affd, United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C.Cir.1974), and was not binding in any other proceeding. 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 permissible in any context under the terms of 18 U.S.C. §§' 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.

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

Related

United States v. Grice
37 F. Supp. 2d 428 (D. South Carolina, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 F.3d 828, 329 U.S. App. D.C. 88, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3872, 1998 WL 94507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-liddy-george-gordon-cadc-1998.