◆ SpookStack

LOOKS MR PSU pee Se B “has tainted the instant D s. With respect 0 —— ° : Shinaick, his. counsel stated at oval argusent, and the govern perenne mr demee a at “did not deny, thet. Patricia Hearst's trial testimony. | dentified other persons besides tir. Shindigh gro. Webses ho may have been involved -in the harboring of ierseif? and: | the Harrises ‘in this. district. That information yeu seen | “to call into question the accuracy of the government ' $ asser- tion that the. sole. basis ‘of the*grand jury's current interest ‘in ‘the witnesses. is Miss. Heagstits = S.eatinony. qf that assertion tts, were correct, ‘then it would seem. ‘that the other persons iden- So “Sy Te ‘tified by Miss. Hearst would have been, Subpoered, “Since they ‘were. “not, ‘it ma may ‘well be that the source of the current. inter est in the witnesses is more than simply iiss Hearst” s testi- mony. Recause the’ ‘other, bounces. could be tainted by the. -ALdegal electronic. sunieiiience alleged by the witnesses in “SP ; this’ case it is incumbent upon the government to direct its - Fesponse.. to the existence of iMegal electronic surveillance She: ‘Soverncant argues alteraatively that its re- sponse is ‘oufflcient , under the. facts of this: case and under “the: law of this Circuit, to satisfy the requirements. of Sec- 4 tien 3504. An analysis of the governcent’ = affidavits leads AR to the. contrary conclusion. “With respect to Weiner, ‘several | , ‘{nadequacies are evident, Although the affidavit purports ; | W 8 be based in part on an agency check, the results are bor | ‘of-date, inasmich as they only. cover a ‘period of up to a ooh | _ year ago. In addition, wi ithout wegard to its date, the report “of the agency. check leaves. ‘mich to be desired Noemie Pe —me aga dactidevse, fromthe. person ma -Ox su cvising it, nor is