United States v. Liddy, George Gordon

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 19, 1998 Decided March 6, 1998

No. 73-1020

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

George Gordon Liddy and Ida Maxwell Wells,

Petitioners

Robert Spencer Oliver, et al.,

Appellees

On Petition and Cross-Petition

to Vacate 1973 Order

(No. 72cr1827)

John W. Williams argued the cause for cross-petitioner
George Gordon Liddy, with whom Ty Cobb was on the briefs.

David J. Branson argued the cause and filed the briefs for
petitioner Ida Maxwell Wells.

Elizabeth Trosman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the
cause for appellee United States of America, with whom
Mary Lou Leary, U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was
filed, and John R. Fisher, Assistant U.S. Attorney, were on
the brief.

R.C. Slagle, III, pro hac vice, argued the cause and filed
the brief for appellee Robert Spencer Oliver.

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Silberman and Henderson,
Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: This cause came before us on petitions seeking
clarification of the court's unpublished Order of January 19,
1973. See United States v. Liddy, No. 73-1020 (D.C. Cir.
January 19, 1973), rev'g in part United States v. Liddy, 354
F. Supp. 217, 221 (D.D.C. 1973); see also United States v.
Liddy, 509 F.2d 428, 446 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (referring to
unpublished Order). The Order prohibited admission of evi-
dence as to the contents of telephone conversations at Demo-
cratic National Committee Headquarters intercepted in May
and June 1972 under the direction of G. Gordon Liddy.

The court has determined that there is no question before
it suitable for adjudication. The petitions concern the current
effect of the Order. The language of that Order clearly
indicates that it was a suppression order, the scope of which
was coterminous with the scope of the evidence-barring provi-
sion of the wiretapping statute, 18 U.S.C. s 2515. As a
suppression order, the Order was applicable only to the
criminal trial of United States v. Liddy, Crim. No. 1827-72
(D.D.C. 1973), aff'd, United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428
(D.C. Cir. 1974), and was not binding in any other proceed-

ing. There is therefore no issue relating to the Order
properly before the court.

In reaching this judgment, we in no way suggest that
disclosure of the matters in question here would be permissi-
ble in any context under the terms of 18 U.S.C. ss 2511 and
2515; nor do we mean to decide whether cross-petitioner
Liddy has standing even to seek disclosure of the matters in
question. These issues are not properly before us and we
offer no opinion on them.

Petitions Denied.