The opinion of the court was delivered by: Austin, District Judge.
Following a trial by jury, defendants were found guilty in
August 1964 of conspiracy and mail and wire fraud and on
appeal these convictions were affirmed. United States v.
Hoffa, et al., 367 F.2d 698 (C.A. 7, 1966). Thereafter,
petitions for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the
United States were filed. In response thereto, the Solicitor
General, sua sponte, advised the Court that on December 2,
1963, some six months after the indictment, agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, through use of electronic
recording equipment installed by trespass in the office of a
Benjamin Sigelbaum, overheard and recorded a conversation
between the defendant Burris and Sigelbaum. This equipment had
been installed and maintained on Sigelbaum's office for about a
year previous thereto. He also informed the Court that the
recording was only "peripherally relevant to the charges
underlying [Burris'] conviction;" that the information thus
obtained "was not introduced into evidence at trial, that it
was never the basis of any investigative lead, and that it was
in part already known, through Burris' own statements to
government attorneys." The Court nevertheless was impelled to
grant each of the defendants an opportunity to evaluate the
Solicitor General's revelation and "to establish, if he can,
that the interception of this particular conversation, or any
other conversations, vitiated in some manner his conviction."
Hoffa, et al. v. United States, 387 U.S. 231-233, 87 S.Ct.
1583, 18 L.Ed.2d 738 (1967). In remanding, the Supreme Court
directed the District Court to "confine the evidence presented
by both sides to that which is material to the questions of the
content of this and any other electronically eavesdropped
conversations, and of the relevance of any such conversations
to the petitioners' subsequent convictions." Hoffa, et al. v.
United States, supra, pp. 233-234, 87 S.Ct. p. 1584.
The indictment in this case was the third of a series
involving the defendant Hoffa and the Sun Valley development
in Florida. The original indictment was returned on December
7, 1960 at Orlando, Florida and dismissed on July 12, 1961
because of the improper empanelling of the Grand Jury. United
States v. Hoffa, et al., 196 F. Supp. 25 (D.C.Fla. 1961). A
second indictment involving the same defendant and the same
subject matter was returned on October 11, 1961 at Orlando,
Florida. That indictment was dismissed on June 4, 1963, the
same day that the Chicago indictment was returned. In point of
time, therefore, the overheard conversation of December 2,
1963 was nearly three years after the return of the original
Florida indictment and six months after the return of this
The government has now introduced in evidence two Federal
Bureau of Investigation Reports, which are summaries of the
admitted overhearing of December 2, 1963. Plaintiff's Exhibits
2-3 and 3-1. Except for the December 2, 1963 overhearing and
nine additional overhearings, the government has sworn by
affidavit that the Federal Bureau of Investigation after
diligent search of its files, records and indices had found no
other records of any overhearings of any conversations by
defendants. The records of the nine overhearings were tendered
to the Court in a sealed envelope for an in camera inspection,
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1-A. The Court has carefully read this
Exhibit which discloses extremely brief overhearings that
contain no information either remotely or peripherally relevant
to the transactions and evidence on which these defendants were
indicted and convicted. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1-A has been
resealed and is available for review purposes. Affidavit
evidence was also presented by the government that the Internal
Revenue Service had caused a diligent search to be made of its
records, files and indices and found no record of any
electronically eavesdropped overhearings of any conversation by
The next phase of the government's evidence was directed to
establish that not only was all the information contained in
the December 2, 1963 electronically eavesdropped overhearings
known to the government long prior to the overhearings, but
that the information so procured did not furnish the
government any investigative leads. Plaintiff's Exhibits 4-27.
A log of the December 2, 1963 overhearing reveals eleven
items of information, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1: (1) Burris'
interest in Sun Valley; (2) Dranow's interest in Sun Valley;
(3) Sigelbaum's interest in Sun Valley; (4) Hoffa's interest
in Sun Valley; (5) that either Dranow's or Sigelbaum's
interest in Sun Valley was subject to a bank claim; (6) that
there was a $57,000 transaction with Irving Kipnis; (7) that
Willis was the Trustee; (8) that Burris got money from "The
Airport"; (9) the protections surrounding the granting of
loans from the pension fund; (10) that Hyman spent the loans
differently than he should have; and (11) the use of the word
As to each of these items, the Court finds that the evidence
establishes prior knowledge by the government of
(1) Burris' interest in Sun Valley from (a) Burris' sworn
testimony before the McClellan Committee on 6/29/59 and
10/21/59 set forth in government's Additional Appendix, pp. 74
and 92; (b) an FBI interview with Burris dated 10/2/62,
Plaintiff's Exhibit 19; (c) an interview with J. Friedman
dated 11/15/60, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5.
(2) Dranow's interest in Sun Valley from the same sources as
Burris' and also a statement of Edwin H. Willis dated
12/22/60, Plaintiff's Exhibit 9.
(3) Sigelbaum's interest in Sun Valley from (a) an FBI
interview with Sigelbaum dated 11/15/60, Plaintiff's Exhibit
4; (b) an FBI interview with J. Friedman dated 11/15/60,
Plaintiff's Exhibit 5; (c) a statement of Edwin H. Willis,
dated 12/22/60, Plaintiff's Exhibit 9.
(4) Hoffa's interest in Sun Valley from an FBI interview
with Burris dated 6/12/60, Plaintiff's Exhibit 17.
(5) a bank having a claim with reference to Dranow's or
Sigelbaum's interest in Sun Valley, from Lou Poller's Grand
Jury testimony of October 1962, Plaintiff's Exhibit 25, pp.
(6) the $57,000 transaction with Irving Kipnis, from (a) an
FBI interview with Kipnis dated 7/2/62, Plaintiff's Exhibit 6;
(b) an FBI contact with Kipnis dated 7/31/62, Plaintiff's
Exhibit 7; (c) an FBI interview with Kipnis dated 10/31/63,
Plaintiff's Exhibit 8; (d) a signed statement by Kipnis dated
5/31/63, Plaintiff's Exhibit 11; (e) an IRS interview with
Kipnis dated 8/6/62, Plaintiff's Exhibit 12; (f) Grand Jury
testimony of Kipnis dated 9/18/62, Plaintiff's Exhibit 22; (g)
Grand Jury testimony of Kipnis dated 9/18/62, Plaintiff's
(7) Willis being Trustee, from (a) an FBI interview with
Sigelbaum dated 11/15/60, Plaintiff's Exhibit 4; (b) an FBI
interview with Friedman ...