New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "The best of the best above all the rest. Accept no substitutes." by Richard R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. Read More

ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

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).

(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact