Roberts v. United States

Background

A defendant and his co-defendant, Levine, were convicted. After the indictment, FBI agents monitored conversations between Levine and Levine’s attorney. On remand in Levine v. United States, the Court of Appeals granted Levine a new trial because the Government disclosed the monitoring. But the Court of Appeals denied the other defendant’s request for the same relief or, alternatively, a remand to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he was prejudiced; the court stated that denial was “without prejudice” to an application to the District Court. The Solicitor General acknowledged that FBI logs of the monitored conversations are available.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the other defendant should get an evidentiary hearing to decide if the monitoring harmed his trial. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in denying that alternative motion, especially given the availability of the FBI logs. The Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and remanded with direction that the District Court must afford the defendant an evidentiary hearing. Depending on the District Court’s findings, the conviction will either be reinstated or a new trial will be ordered. The opinion cites United States v. Wade in explaining the appropriate relief.

Real world impact

The order requires a trial court to examine whether government monitoring of lawyer-client conversations affected a defendant’s case. The defendant’s conviction is not final; the evidentiary hearing could lead to a new trial or reinstatement of the conviction. The ruling directs how courts should proceed when prosecution disclosures show possible monitoring of attorney communications.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black dissented from the per curiam decision. Justice Marshall did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case.