United States v. James G. Ryan, United States of America v. Adrian Wilson, United States of America v. Bernard Zeldin

Adrian Wilson, Bernard Zeldin and James Ryan appeal their convictions in Federal District Court for the District of Nevada for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 , the so-called “Travel Act,” 18 U.S.C. § 371 , the federal conspiracy statute, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 , the aiding and abetting statute. They make several assignments of error, relating to the jurisdiction of the court below, the legality of evidence gathered by wiretapping and electronic surveillance and the general conduct of the government in investigating and prosecuting this case. In connection with this last issue, appellants Zeldin and Wilson also argue that the government intentionally interfered with their attorney-client privilege. In addition, appellant Ryan alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict against him as a coconspirator, appellant Wilson argues that the trial judge erred in refusing certain jury instructions, and appellants Zeldin and Ryan challenge the constitutionality of the Travel Act. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm all appellants’ convictions.

Each of the appellants filed an opening brief emphasizing facts as they apply to his particular case. ■ Mindful of these…

dissenting from denial of en banc hearing with whom Judge ELY joins:

The issue is whether Mizera’s consent was voluntary. If Mizera’s consent was involuntary, the conversations between him and Ryan were inadmissible under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(c). 1

The district court’s factual findings on this issue can be summarized as follows: 2 To secure Mizera’s consent, the officers told him that they were prepared to arrest him immediately and that they had enough evidence to send him to prison for ten years. But, they suggested, if Mizera “cooperated,” the prosecution would be dropped. The officers also told him that if he did not cooperate, he would lose his livelihood, damage his family, and be deprived of special medical treatments for his severe headaches. Mizera asked if he could call his lawyer. The officers said that he could do so, but if he did, the deal was off. The district court held that “consent” thus secured was “voluntary,” the panel affirmed, and the court has refused to take this case en banc.

As early as 1897, the Supreme Court recognized that coercion need not take the form of physical torture:

And more recently:

The psychological pressures employed by the officers…

548 F.2d 782 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James G. RYAN, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard ZELDIN, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 75-1317, 75-1314 and 75-1313. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 24, 1976. Rehearing Denied in No. 75-1313 June 28, 1976. Certiorari Denied Nov. 8, 1976. As Amended Nov. 30, 1976. See 97 S.Ct. 354 . Godfrey Isaac (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant in No. 75-1313. John C. Bartlett (argued), Reno, Nev., for defendant-appellant in No. 75-1314. Harry E. Claiborne (argued), Las Vagas, Nev., for defendant-appellant in No. 75-1317. Lawrence Semenza, U. S. Atty. (argued), Reno, Nev., and Richard A. Wright, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee. Before WRIGHT, KILKENNY and TRASK, Circuit Judges. TRASK, Circuit Judge: 1 Adrian Wilson, Bernard Zeldin and James Ryan appeal their convictions in Federal District Court for the District of Nevada for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 , the so-called "Travel Act," 18 U.S.C. § 371 , the federal conspiracy…