U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

United States v. J. W. Robinson, Mario Escandar, Carlos Escandar, Aleida Jiminez, Georgina Lafont-Escandar, Margarita Arce Dearmas

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided June 28, 1974 · Brown, Wisdom, Gewin, Bell, Thorn-Berry, Coleman, Goldberg, Ainsworth, Godbold, Dyer, Simpson, Morgan, Clark, Roney, Gee

496 F.2d 225; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7879 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Donald I. Bierman and Henry R. Carr, Miami, Fla., court appointed counsel, for Robinson., Donald I. Bierman, Bierman, Sonnett & Beiley P. A., Miami, Fla., for M. Escandar, C. Escandar, Jiminez, Lafont-Escandar., James J. Hogan and Alan E. Weinstein, Miami Beach, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Margarita Arce De Armas., Jose E. Martinez, Jerome P. Ullman, George A. Kokus, Asst. U. S. Attys., Miami, Fla., John J. Robinson, Atty. U. S. Dept. of Justice, Crim. Div., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

United States v. Jackie D. Long, Robert F. Money, United States of America v. Keith A. Griffin (11th Cir. 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On our previous consideration of this appeal we remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether wiretap applications were properly authorized under 18 U.S. C.A. § 2516(1). United States v. Robinson, 5 Cir. 1973, 472 F.2d 973 (en banc).

The district court, after an extensive hearing, determined that the wiretaps sub judice violated section 2516(1) in that the applications for electronic surveillance orders were not authorized by the Attorney General, or by an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by him.

Since the evidence used to convict the defendants is conceded to have eventuated from the improperly authorized wiretaps, such evidence was subject to exclusion under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2515. United States v. Giordano, 1974, - U.S. -, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 [42 L.W. 4642]. The judgments of conviction are reversed and these appeals are remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.