« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
court below, and special counsel has hinted that more requests
may be forthcoming. In any event, if a stay in granted, the Committee may seek an early test of the Supreme Court's view of the issue by asking the Court to vacate the stay. See, e.g., Certain Named and Unnamed Non-Citizen Children and Their Parents v. Texas, 448 U.S. 1327, 1330 (1980) (Powell, Circuit Justice, in chambers).
4. There are independent grounds upon which this court might properly enlarge the period before mandate issues. The court now has before it the issues presented in In re Grand Jury 86-3 (Miami). The facts in that case present issues similar to those raised in this case, but in a substantially different context. The judiciary and the parties share an interest in seeing that the issues that stem from the Committee's requests are ultimately presented to the Supreme Court on a full record that establishes their context and illuminates the consequences of the possible resolutions. Those interests would be best served
if the issues raised in this and the succeeding case could be presented to the Supreme Court together. See Rule 19.4, Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.
See Transcript of Proceedings at 123, In re Grand Jury 86-3 (Miami) (S.D. Fla), reproduced in Appendix to Emergency Motion to Extend Stay at 172, In re Grand Jury 86-3 (Miami), No. 87-6070 (11th Cir.).
The foregoing motion was dispatched from Washington, D.C.,
by commercial courier for delivery on Monday, December 14, 1987, to the Clerk of this court and, at his direction, to the judges who heard this appeal. Copies will be delivered on Monday, December 14, 1987, to counsel for the other parties as follows:
Alan I. Baron
United States House of
Committee on the Judiciary
House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Jo Ann Farrington
U.S. Dept. of Justice
The Bond Building
1400 New York Ave.,
Washington, D.C. 20430
Terence . Anderson
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
DEC 1 ! 1997
Before Merritt*, Jones** and Guy***, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
Appellant's emergency motion for stay of the mandate pending application
to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari is DENIED.
*Honorable Gilbert S. Merritt, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
***Honorable Ralph B. Guy, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit,
IN RE: REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO GRAND JURY MATERIALS
JUDGE ALCEE L. HASTINGS,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Before MERRITT*, JONES**, and GUY***, Circuit Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and was argued by counsel;
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be and the same is hereby, AFFIRMED; and the stay previously entered by this Court is hereby dissolved.
GUY, Circuit Judge, dissented in part and concurred in part and filed an opinion.
*Honorable Gilbert S. Merritt, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designaiton.
**Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, U. S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
***Honorable Ralph B. Guy, Jr., U. S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
The Committee on the Judiciary, through its Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, is conducting an inquiry into whether United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings, Jr. should be impeached. An impeachment resolution concerning Judge Hastings has been introduced, a copy of which is enclosed.
The Committee has received information suggesting that in September, 1985 Judge Hastings may have improperly disclosed electronic surveillance information concerning an FBI undercover investigation, and that this disclosure thwarted the activities of law enforcement agencies in carrying out their responsibilities.
Specifically, we have been advised that in July, 1985, the United States Attorney's Office in Miami filed an application seeking to monitor the telephone conversations of several people in connection with an investigation of the Miami local of the International Longshoreman's Association. The surveillance ran from July 15 to September 14. Judge Hastings was the judge supervising the conduct of the wiretap. In that capacity he received progress reports detailng the information derived from the surveillance. Included in these progress reports was information indicating that that the name of Mayor Steven Clark was being invoked by persons who were the subject of the investigation.