Last year, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California prevented prosecutors from introducing over 200 hours of recordings that were captured without warrants as evidence in a real-estate bid-rigging case. The offending recordings were made by planting equipment outside a San Mateo courthouse.
More recently, on July 19, Breyer released a 13 page decision (available HERE) detailing that evidence related to these recordings, but not obtained illegally, was admissible. Examples of this evidence are recordings made with body microphones, video surveillance and, more controversially, testimony from cooperators who had been played snippets from the forbidden recordings.
In his decision, Breyer wrote, “That Agent X unlawfully obtained evidence on Date Y regarding Property Z does not put all evidence lawfully obtained by Agent X, on Date Y, or regarding Property Z off-limits for all time. It puts the offending evidence off-limits, along with other evidence discovered as a proximate result of the violation, but that’s it.”
The judge also established that it was defense counsel’s responsibility to demonstrate that evidence procured by legal means could not have been obtained by government without the information from the illegal recordings.
In response to Breyer’s decision, Matthew Jacobs of Vinson & Elkins, one of the defense lawyers, said, “The court has already determined that the Department of Justice and FBI acted illegally in undertaking this secret wiretapping plan. Nothing about the court’s decision changes that ruling.
Full Content: The Recorder
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Judge Dismisses Antitrust Lawsuit Against Ivy League Over Athletic Scholarships
Oct 11, 2024 by
CPI
FTC and DOJ Revamp Merger Guidelines to Identify Illegal Transactions More Efficiently
Oct 11, 2024 by
CPI
US Consumer Watchdog Eyes Expansion of ‘Junk Fee’ Crackdown Ahead of 2024 Election
Oct 10, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil Proposes Reform to Competition Law Targeting Big Tech
Oct 10, 2024 by
CPI
Meta Enhances User Data Control, Resolving German Antitrust Dispute
Oct 10, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh