McTIERNAN

United States v. McTIERNAN

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 20, 200807-50430California3,792 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

On February 13, 2006, McTiernan was interviewed by tele- phone by Special Agent Stanley Ornellas of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in connection with an investi- gation into former private investigator Anthony Pellicano’s use of illegal wiretapping. Ornellas asked whether McTiernan had knowledge of Pellicano’s wiretapping activities and had previously discussed wiretapping with Pellicano. In response, McTiernan stated that he had never discussed wiretapping with Pellicano, that Pellicano had never mentioned his ability to wiretap telephone calls, and that he had used Pellicano’s services only once, in connection with his divorce.

The responses made to Special Agent Ornellas’ inquiries were false. McTiernan later admitted that he had hired Pelli- cano in or around August 2000 and paid him at least $50,000 to conduct an illegal wiretap of two individuals, one of whom was Charles Roven, the producer of a movie that McTiernan was then directing. Pellicano installed the wiretaps, listened to the subjects’ business and personal telephone calls, and reported their contents to McTiernan.

Several weeks after Ornellas interviewed McTiernan, the government…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.