from TalkLeft.com
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013495.htmlThursday December 22,2005
Experts say Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance could jeopardize current terror cases if the evidence against them is derived from illegal interceptions.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Domestic_Spying.htmlWednesday, December 21, 2005
Experts say wiretap fight may taint cases
By TED BRIDIS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's decision to sometimes bypass the secretive U.S. court that governs terrorism wiretaps could threaten cases against terror suspects that rely on evidence uncovered during the disputed eavesdropping, some legal experts cautioned.
These experts pointed to this week's unprecedented resignation from the government's spy court by U.S. District Judge James Robertson as an indicator of the judiciary's unease over domestic wiretaps ordered without warrants under a highly classified domestic spying program authorized by President Bush.
Neither Robertson nor the White House would comment Wednesday on his abrupt resignation from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the little-known panel of 11 U.S. judges that secretively approves wiretaps and searches in the most sensitive terrorism and espionage cases. But legal experts were astonished.~snip~
"Imagine if there is evidence critical to a criminal prosecution and the defendant challenges the evidence because it is constitutionally suspect," said Beryl Howell, former general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It could jeopardize any criminal case."How would a defendant know? How about a request under
18 USC Sec. 3504?
(a) In any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States—
(1) upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act;
(b) As used in this section “unlawful act” means any act the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device (as defined in section 2510 (5) of this title) in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any regulation or standard promulgated pursuant thereto.I suspect there will be a lot of motions filed under this section, not just in terror cases, but in other cases in which the defendants are foreign-born. They will seek to have the Government affirm or deny that they were subjects of Bush's warrantless surveillance. I'm not encouraging the filing of the motions, TalkLeft does not give legal advice, it's just an interesting thought.
~snip~
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
