United States v. J. W. Robinson, Mario Escandar, Carlos Escandar, Aleida Jiminez, Georgina Lafont-Escandar, Margarita Arce Dearmas, 496 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. J. W. Robinson, Mario Escandar, Carlos Escandar, Aleida Jiminez, Georgina Lafont-Escandar, Margarita Arce Dearmas, 496 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jackie D. Long, Robert F. Money, United States of America v. Keith A. Griffin (ca11, 1990-08-28)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#8 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1) cited 1× in this case · 11 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jackie D. Long, Robert F. Money, United States of America v. Keith A. Griffin (2×)
11th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Robinson, 496 F.2d 225 (5th Cir.1974). 3.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
J. W. ROBINSON, Mario Escandar, Carlos Escandar, Aleida Jiminez, Georgina Lafont-Escandar, Margarita Arce De-Armas, Defendants-Appellants
71-1058.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 28, 1974.
496 F.2d 225
Donald I. Bierman and Henry R. Carr, Miami, Fla., court appointed counsel, for Robinson., Donald I. Bierman, Bierman, Sonnett & Beiley P. A., Miami, Fla., for M. Escandar, C. Escandar, Jiminez, Lafont-Escandar., James J. Hogan and Alan E. Weinstein, Miami Beach, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Margarita Arce De Armas., Jose E. Martinez, Jerome P. Ullman, George A. Kokus, Asst. U. S. Attys., Miami, Fla., John J. Robinson, Atty. U. S. Dept. of Justice, Crim. Div., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Brown, Wisdom, Gewin, Bell, Thorn-Berry, Coleman, Goldberg, Ainsworth, Godbold, Dyer, Simpson, Morgan, Clark, Roney, Gee.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

On our previous consideration of this appeal we remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether wiretap applications were properly authorized under 18 U.S. C.A. § 2516(1). United States v. Robinson, 5 Cir. 1973, 472 F.2d 973 (en banc).

The district court, after an extensive hearing, determined that the wiretaps sub judice violated section 2516(1) in that the applications for electronic surveillance orders were not authorized by the Attorney General, or by an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by him.

Since the evidence used to convict the defendants is conceded to have eventuated from the improperly authorized wiretaps, such evidence was subject to exclusion under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2515. United States v. Giordano, 1974, - U.S. -, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 [42 L.W. 4642]. The judgments of conviction are reversed and these appeals are remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.