Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct §§ 331, 332, 372 (c), 604 (h) (1982 & Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Title IX, Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-452, § 906(b) 84 Stat. 922, 947 ... Title III, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 8 23, 32 § 801-04, 82 Stat. 197, 211-25 (1970).. passim Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules to 1983 Amendment to Rule 6(e), passim "San Pedro trial is ready to begin: 45 133 Cong. Rec. H 1506 (Mar. 23, 1987) 8, 46 46 1. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Does a federal judge have standing to oppose a House Committee's petition for disclosure of statutorily protected electronic surveillance material for use in an impeachment inquiry into the judge's conduct where the disposition of the petition may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect his interests and where neither his nor the interests protected by the statute can be adequately represented by the other parties to the action? 2. Are the members and staff of a legislative committee conducting an impeachment inquiry included within the class of "investigative or law enforcement" officers that Congress defined and authorized to share electronic surveillance material without judicial authorization or supervision? 3. Did the district court err in deciding on the record before it that the Committee was entitled to inspect and copy the testimony of Mayor Clark and FBI agent Mazzella and any accompanying exhibits presented to Grand Jury 86-3 relating to Judge Hastings's conduct in connection with an electronic surveillance that he had authorized and approved? a a. Did the district court err in finding that particularized need had been established where the legislative committee neither alleged nor showed that it had first sought to obtain relevant testimony or exhibits from the identified witnesses themselves? b. May a federal court properly authorize disclosure of recent grand jury material to a legislative committee for use in an impeachment inquiry (i) where the grand jury did not return an indictment or itself recommend disclosure, and (ii) where the record does not establish a proper criminal investigative purpose for the Department's use of the grand jury and without making any examination to determine whether the Justice Department misused the grand jury's powers to promote the impeachment of a disfavored federal judge? 4. Did the lower court err in declining to give notice to attorney Bonehill and Mayor Clark so that either or both might appear and be heard before it approved disclosure to the Committee of the attorney's intercepted conversation and the Mayor's grand jury testimony that was derived therefrom? a. May a federal court order that an intercepted communication between an attorney and a criminal suspect be disclosed to a legislative committee without affording the attorney notice or opportunity to be heard where the effect of that disclosure must as a practical matter effectively impair, if not destroy, the attorney's ability to protect the interests Congress explicitly sought to guarantee under the electronic surveillance statute? b. May a federal court order disclosure of an elected public official's testimony before a grand jury that returned no indictment without affording the public official any notice or opportunity to be heard where the effect of that disclosure will as a practical matter impair, if not destroy, the elected public official's ability to protect interests that the rule of grand jury secrecy is intended to protect? |