THE APPEALS:

Appellant Margarito 0. Romero appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence to custody on eight counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (stolen gold transported in interstate commerce) and one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy).

Appellant Hugo Frederic Forster appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence to custody on five counts of violating § 2314 and one count of violating § 371.

The appeals were consolidated for hearing and disposition.

We note jurisdiction and affirm.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT:

Romero and Forster were jointly indicted on October 13, 1976. The charges under §§2314 and 371 covered the period of November, 1973 through March, 1975. The District Court denied the several motions of Romero and Forster for the suppression of documentary evidence seized under federal search warrants from the possession of state law enforcement officers. The District Court also denied appellants’ motions for dismissal on the grounds of speedy trial violations and abuse of the grand jury process. Romero and Forster were tried to the District Court without a jury upon a stipulation of facts and the admission in evidence of the various federally seized documents under illegal seizure challenge. The judgments of conviction and sentences to custody were duly entered. Romero and Forster are each at liberty pending appeals.

FACTS:

During 1973, the United States Secret Service uncovered information that R & F Metals (R & F), Romero and Forster’s metal processing business, was shipping gold, believed to have been stolen from a mine in Nevada, to Chicago, Illinois. This information was subsequently provided to the South San Francisco Police Department which had been conducting its own investigation into R & F’s gold business triggered by information from a local refinery.

In March, 1975, Detective Singleton of the South San Francisco Police Department contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which then began its own investigation of R & F’s gold trafficking. The FBI investigation was extensively pursued both on an independent basis and in conjunction with state law enforcement authorities.

The South San Francisco Police Department executed state search warrants upon the premises of Romero and Forster on May 2 and June 17,1975, respectively, and seized all documents and records pertaining to the manner in which they conducted their businesses. During August and September, 1975, hearings were held in the state court resulting in the prosecutor’s agreement to return all items not deemed by him to be relevant to the prosecution. This return was not fully accomplished until early 1976 after contempt proceedings had been instituted by Romero and Forster. Meanwhile, however, the police had segregated the documents deemed to be relevant and moved them from the police garage to Detective Singleton’s office. Later, when approximately 70 to 80 percent of the documents had been returned to Romero and Forster, most of those documents retained were transferred from the police department to the prosecutor’s office for use in the state prosecution.

In August, 1975 and before Romero and Forster had filed their state court motions to suppress the evidence, 1 the records, at that time still in the police garage, were made available to the FBI and were examined by federal agents in connection with their independent investigation. Additionally, those documents found relevant by the police and transferred to Singleton’s office were later re-examined.

*394 On October 22, 1975, Romero and Forster were indicted in the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California for a variety of state offenses.

In late March of 1976, Judge Haverty of that Court suppressed the state search warrants and seizure solely on the ground that the warrants’ description of the items to be searched for and seized was too broad. 2 As a result of this ruling, the majority of the case against Romero and the entire case against Forster were dismissed.

On April 26, 1976, the FBI, under authorization of the United States Attorney’s office, secured and executed three federal search warrants for Romero’s home, Forster’s business office, and the office of the state prosecutor. 3

The federal warrants were supported by affidavits which contained no significant information which was not available to the FBI prior to the issuance and execution of the state warrants. Detective Singleton aided in the preparation of the federal warrants and testified that he gave the FBI only information known to him before the state seizures.

Immediately prior to the execution of the federal warrants, the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of the federal investigation met with Judge Haverty to inform him of the pending search warrants for the state prosecutor’s office, Romero’s home, and Forster’s business. Judge Hav-erty expressed no objection to the procedure to be utilized by the federal government in order to obtain the records and he did not indicate that he believed seizure pursuant to the federal warrants would violate the spirit of his order suppressing the evidence. On April 28, 1976, Judge Haverty ordered the records returned to their rightful owners.

ISSUES ON REVIEW:

We deem the dispositive issues to be:

1. Did the District Court err in denying Romero’s and Forster’s motions to suppress the evidence seized under the federal warrants?

2. Were Romero and Forster denied the right to a speedy trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution or were they denied due process by reason of prejudicial indictment delay in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

3. Did the District Court err in failing to dismiss the cause on grounds of abuse of the grand jury?

DISCUSSION:

I. Motion to Suppress the Fruits of the Federal Search Warrant

Romero and Forster contend that the evidence introduced at trial is the direct “fruit” of the unlawful state seizure and was discovered and utilized through a direct exploitation of the illegal state seizure. As such, they contend, it must be suppressed. Appellants also assert that even if the federal warrant was not tainted by the illegal state seizure, the evidence must nevertheless be suppressed in order to effectuate the policy behind the exclusionary rule; i. e., the deterrence of official misconduct. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 486 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 458-59 n.35, 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976).

In addressing the problem of whether the evidence sought to be suppressed was gathered through exploitation of an illegal search, the District Court, in a scholarly and well analyzed memorandum, applied the legal standard expressed in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), and Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 *395 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920), 4 and concluded:

We agree with that premise. In United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 273-274 , 98 S.Ct. 1054, 1059 , 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978), the Court stated:

On the factual issue of the illegal action taken by the state and any possible taint, the District Court found:

The District Court concluded therefrom “that the evidence unlawfully seized by the state was not utilized in the preparation of the federal affidavit or warrant.”

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), we agree with the District Court’s findings that the federal warrant was based on information obtained prior to the execution of the state warrant and was untainted by the illegally seized evidence.

Romero and Forster assert that even if the evidence seized under the federal warrant is found not to be the fruit of the invalid state search, the evidence must nevertheless be suppressed. 5 They contend that the federal warrant is merely an attempt to cure a prior illegal search and that policy considerations underlying the exclusionary rule demand exclusion of the evidence to deter otherwise unreviewable police conduct.

In this vein, the District Court proceeded to evaluate the potential for unlawful searches despite an independent factual basis for the search:

Nor does that rationale run afoul of El-kins where the “silver platter” doctrine received its death knell. 6 Elkins held that “evidence obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant’s immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible over the defendant’s timely objection in a federal criminal trial.” Id. at 223 , 80 S.Ct. at 1447 . A federal warrant was issued in Elkins ; however, it was directed to the bank where local officials had placed the evidence for safekeeping. The affidavit in support of the federal warrant was founded upon the advice and information received on a “silver platter” from state officers after their illegal seizure. The Government never claimed that the evidentiary use of the tape recordings in question was justified under the force of the federal warrant, but only that such use was justified by the “silver platter” doctrine. The opinion in Elkins is silent as to the validity or invalidity of the federal warrant and only holds that federal officers in such a situation fall into the shoes of the errant state officers and are subjected to the exclusionary rule. The issue of the purity and viability of an independent federal investigation and gathering of a factual basis of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant was not presented in Elkins as indeed there were none.

Here the Government makes no claim of lawful evidentiary use of the evidence seized via the outdated “silver platter” doctrine, but on the contrary, it claims lawful usage of the evidence seized through the force of a valid federal search warrant and seizure based on knowledge from untainted evidence independently gathered and unrelated to the illegal state warrant and seizure thereunder. 7

*398 The Government’s failure to inform the United States Magistrate in its affidavit for the federal search warrant that the evidence sought under the federal warrant had been previously suppressed by the state court is not a basis for invalidating the federal warrant. 8 The state warrants were held unlawful because they were general warrants, “on their face constitutionally overbroad as to the description of the property to be seized.” That infirmity did not go to a lack of factual establishment of probable cause so, here, a lack of advice about the overbroad state warrants was not material to the Magistrate’s finding of probable cause. See generally United States v. Hole, 564 F.2d 298 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Taxe, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 , 97 S.Ct. 737 , 50 L.Ed.2d 751 (1977); United States v. Damitz, 495 F.2d 50 (9th Cir. 1974).

II. Speedy Trial Rights.

Forster next raises various contentions relating to delay prior to his federal indictment. As explained in Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1381-82 (9th Cir. 1978):

Forster contends that the date of his state arrest should be deemed the initiation of federal prosecution because “a federal prosecution could have taken place as early as the state prosecution.” As we held in United States v. Cordova, 537 F.2d 1073 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 960 , 97 S.Ct. 385 , 50 L.Ed.2d 327 (1976), the “speedy trial right under the Sixth Amendment [is] not activated until the date of federal ‘accusation.’ ” (Emphasis added). Id. at 1075 .

In United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 , 92 S.Ct. 455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971), the Supreme Court, in dealing with a period of three years between the occurrence of the alleged criminal acts and the filing of the indictment, held that the defendants became “accused” and that the Sixth Amendment protection attached upon the return of a federal indictment. But the Court also ruled that “[invocation of the speedy trial provision . . need not await indictment, information, or other formal charge.” Id. at 321 , 92 S.Ct. at 463 . Forster relies on, inter alia, United States v. DeTienne, 468 F.2d 151 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 911 , 93 S.Ct. 974 , 35 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973), where the Court stated that “[o]f course, if the crimes for whi.ch a defendant is ultimately prosecuted really only gild the charge underlying his initial arrest and the different accusatorial dates between them are not reasonably explicable, the initial arrest may well mark the speedy trial provision’s applicability as to prosecution for all the interrelated offenses.” Id. at 155 . Such a'situation was not present in DeTienne nor is it to be found here. We agree *399 with the District Court’s conclusion that “the federal prosecution of defendants was initiated only at the time defendants were indicted on federal charges.”

Lastly, we see no evidence indicating that Forster was prejudiced in his ability to conduct his defense. The District Court recognized the appellants had suffered financially during the state and federal proceedings, but found that “there is no basis upon which to conclude that defendants have been denied a fair trial.” We agree.

III. Grand Jury Proceedings.

Romero and Forster lastly argue that the grand jury process was abused. They contend that the evidence submitted before the grand jury was insufficient to establish probable cause. Addressing a similar contention in United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781, 785 (9th Cir. 1974), we held that:

We agree with the District Court’s statement that “[ajlthough a complete absence of evidence might serve to invalidate an indictment, see Costello v. United States, supra at 364, 76 S.Ct. 406 (Burton, J. concurring) and United States v. Tane, 329 F.2d 848, 853-54 (2d Cir. 1964), we do not find a complete absence of competent evidence here.” Further, it is well established that a grand jury may return an indictment based solely upon hearsay evidence. Costello.

Secondly, Romero and Forster complain of the prosecution’s failure to provide the grand jury with a letter from Forster’s counsel allegedly containing exculpatory evidence. Contrary to the obligation imposed upon the prosecution at trial, the Government is not required to present all evidence that might be exculpatory to a grand jury. See Loraine v. United States, 396 F.2d 335, 339 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 933 , 89 S.Ct. 292 , 21 L.Ed.2d 270 (1968); United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1977). Regarding the content of the letter, the District Court ruled that “[t]he evidence sought to be presented did not clearly negate guilt or undermine the authority of the grand jury to act, see United States v. Mandel, 415 F.Supp. 1033, 1041-42 (D.Md. 1976).” We agree.

The separate judgments of conviction and sentences to custody entered by the District Court on August 10, 1977 are each affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

. Romero and Forster imply that the FBI was aware that the documents they examined in August of 1975 had been illegally seized. This allegation is incorrect; it was not until late August and September, 1975, that Romero and Forster requested the return of certain documents during preliminary state court motions.

. The Government conceded below that the state seizures were unlawful under federal constitutional standards.

. The state prosecutor handling the case stated that if the federal government wanted the documents in his possession, a search warrant for his office would be required as the documents were technically not in his possession in that he had been ordered by the state court to return the records.

. Appellants’ complaints concerning the District Court’s asserted reliance on the “inevitable discovery rule” are unfounded. In any event, the District Court did not significantly rely upon this doctrine as a basis for its opinion.

. Romero and Forster’s contention that the FBI should have proceeded by way of a subpoena duces tecum rather than a search warrant is unfounded. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 , 98 S.Ct. 1970 , 56 L.Ed.2d 525 (1978).

. The “silver platter” doctrine, a phrase conceived by Justice Frankfurter in Lustig v. United States, 338 U.S. 74 , 69 S.Ct. 1372 , 93 L.Ed. 1819 (1949), referred to the procedure whereby evidence illegally seized by state officers could be admitted in federal court so long as federal officers did not participate in the illegal seizure. If the state officers illegally seized evidence and handed it over to the federal officers on a “silver platter,” it was admissible.

. An examination of the record in Elkins at the District Court level discloses that while the state officers held possession of the evidence, consisting of reels of wiretap recordings, they invited the federal officers to listen to them. The federal officers did so. Thereafter the state officers placed the tapes in a safe deposit box for safekeeping. In Elkins , unlike here, the state court had not ordered a return of the wiretap evidence to any person. In fact, nei *398 ther Elkins nor codefendant Clark made any claim to the reels of wiretap recordings.

. Romero and Forster’s reliance on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and their contention that federal prosecution is barred by collateral estoppel are meritless.