While a witness may not refuse to answer a question solely because it is based upon fruits of an illegal search, U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974), he would have “just cause” within the meaning of the contempt statutes to refuse to answer a question based upon illegal electronic surveillance.
18 U.S.C. § 2515;
Gelbard v. U.S., 408 U.S. 41 (1972);
In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Hermann), 664 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1981).
Upon the mere “allegation that the grand jury questioning is prompted by illegal wiretaps, the government is required to make an adequate denial”. In re Brummitt, 613 F.2d 62, 65 (5th Cir. 1980). And an evidentiary hearing should be conducted to determine the sufficiency of the government’s response, where a “specific” claim is made.
Beverly v. U.S., 468 F.2d 732, 744 (5th Cir. 1972) (noting preferred practice).