Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
In the Matter of Sylvia Jane Brown, a Witness Before Theunited States Grand Jury, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals, - 465 F.2d 371
William L. Osterhoudt (argued), of Singer & Osterhoudt, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
George Calhoun, Atty. (argued), Robert L. Keuch, Atty., A. William Olson, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Guy L. Goodwin, Sp. Atty., Washington, D. C., Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before BROWNING, ELY, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After argument in this court of her appeal from an order adjudging Sylvia Jane Brown in contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury, the United States Supreme Court handed down Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972), reversing United States v. Gelbard, 443 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1971); Reed v. United States, 448 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1971); Olsen v. United States, 446 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1971); and Bacon v. United States, 446 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1971).
Because Gelbard now requires a remand to the district court for a factual determination on the alleged use by the government of illegal electronic eavesdropping, it is not now necessary to decide the other issues tendered in this appeal.
The appellant has been at liberty upon a stay granted by this court, and, accordingly, no one has been prejudiced by the limitations of the thirty-day period set forth in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1826. Once again, we express no opinion upon the constitutional question that might be presented if a party insists upon a final decision within such a time frame. See Charleston v. United States, 444 F.2d 504 (9th Cir.), petition for cert. dismissed, 404 U.S. 916, 92 S.Ct. 241, 30 L.Ed.2d 191 (1971).
Reversed and remanded.