CRS-17 specific forfeiture provision specifiying that which is to be surrendered to the government. The need for Public Law 89-318 was largely the result of two factors: (1) the absence of a Federal statute making the murder of the President a crime, and (2) the absence of any general forfeiture provision which would have covered the variety of materials sought to be preserved. Conclusions The statute passed by the Congress in 1965 to provide for the preservation of Warren Commission materials was designed to apply only to the problem at hand. That law included no language indicating any future application. Indeed, the authority of the Attorney General to make determinations as to the items to be acquired was only effective for one year. Today, the killing of a President, a congressman (18 U.S.c. 351), and certain other officers and employees of the United States (18 U.S.C. 1114) are statutory crimes. Specific forfeiture statutes provide the basis for condemnation of specific articles and items constituting contraband. However, there is currently no provision for the seizing and retention of evidence generally which might exist relevant to such a murder. It may therefore be assumed that in the event of future crimes of this sort the Congress would once again be required to pass specific condemna tion legislation in order to permanently gain title to such evidentiary materials. CRS-18 On issuance of a proper warrant seizure may of course be had of "(1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense; or (2) contraband, the fruits of crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense. Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, such authority to seize does not result in authority to indefinitely retain or acquire title without further legislation. ficials may be of sufficiant moment so as to present a need for more sweeping authority for permanent storage of related evidence by the Federal government. This could be done by the enactment of laws providing for forfeiture or condemnation in the case of specificially enumerated crimes, or it could be left to case-by-case determination by the Congress as the need arose. The difficulty of specifying with particularity in advance those types of materials which would become United States property could in either case be handled as it was in Public Law 89-318. That is, the Attorney General could be provided with the authority to make detailed analysis of the Government's needs and condemnation would then proceed on the basis of such determinations. The crime of assassination of high governmental of Karim Bonhorde Kent M. Ronhovde F. ANALYSIS OF THE FREE PRESS-FAIR TRIAL-SPEEDY TRIAL TRILEMMA, AND ISSUES CONCERNING THIRD PARTY RECORDS AND THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN THE CASE OF POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS The attached analysis was prepared by Leland E. Beck as a consultant to the American Law Division of the Library of Congress. It presents a legal analysis of some issues apt to arise in the case of a political assassination, and uses the Kennedy assassination as a case study. The analysis was completed in May 1978. Several events since that time bear upon the analysis. First, is the case of United States v. LaSalle National Bank, U.S., 46 U.S.L.W. 4713 (No. 77 365, June 19, 1978). LaSalle provides for an "institutional good faith" test to be applied to enforcement of IRS administrative summonses when there is any question of use of the summons to acquire evidence for criminal investigations. This contrasts with the analysis (ch. 111, nec. E, pp. 88-90) noting any valid use of the summons would permit enforcement even if criminal prosecution was being contemplated: A potential alternative test. Second, the Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights of the House Government Operations Committee held hearings on H.R. 10076 (ch. III, nec, J, pp. 131134) on May 23 and 24. This bill embodies some of the recommendations of the Privacy Protection Study Commission. Third, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed its judgment in Philadelphia Newspapers v. Jerome, 46 U.S.L.W. 2575 (Apr. 28, 1978), finding that United States v. Cianfrani was not contrary authority. These cases, and Gannet Co. v. De Pasquale, in which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari, address the issue whether it is constitutional to exclude the public and the press from pretrial hearings in order to avoid publicity which would prejudice the defendant's right to an impartial jury. (ch. II, sec. F, note III, and accompanying text.) (721) II. THE FREE PRESS, FAIR TRIAL and SPEEDY TRIAL TRILEMMA..... 5 B. The Fourth Amendment: The Right to be Secure in One's 77 C. D. The Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination.. 81 84 E. Access to Tax Records: The IRS as an Intra-Government 86 93 |