U.S. v. Mandell

In prosecution on conspiracy to kidnap and conspiracy to extort charges, as well as unlawful use and possession of firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence gathered pursuant to judicially-approved wiretap, even though defendant argued govt. had failed to satisfy necessity element for obtaining wiretap, where, according to defendant, govt. already knew identity of defendant’s accomplice in spite of agent’s claim in affidavit that wiretap was necessary to obtain said identity. While defendant listed four instances that tied defendant to said accomplice that was known to govt. prior to seeking instant wiretap, necessity element in application process is not difficult to meet, and said instances did not obviously tie accomplice to charged plot to kidnap and extort that formed basis of instant conviction. Moreover, wiretap served to ascertain defendant’s role in charged plot and to obtain evidence of defendant’s guilt. Defendant also raised Brady issue with respect to govt.’s failure to tender report regarding in ownership of gun found in building that defendant had rented, where evidence of ownership of gun would not have changed outcome of trial since other evidence indicated that defendant was aware of gun’s presence and of its planned use in charged plot.