◆ SpookStack

Supervision. ee ‘ground for attacking the convictions. In the first place, of misconduct charged to Weinberg discussed below. 6.6 time, and that the rest of the time he was free of government _ There are several. flaws in this argument a5 4 none of the defendants has shown any direct or specific harm resulting from the alleged lack of supervision. Defén- - : dants' claims in this regard are amorphous and unfocused. | G Perhaps they can best be viewed as generalizations or charac- terizations to be applied to the other specific. instances Oe gw NEN Rete kw, Second, defendants cite no authority holding that the constitution requires the FBI to impose a particular degree of supervision on an informant. The third flaw in the argument is that even though a lack of supervision may connote a defect in an investiga~_ tion, the only relevant question is whether ultimately that defect affected the reliability of the result, and, as shown in the discussion of reliability, Section VI-A- : 6, supra, on this:point the government rates well. The fourth defect in this argument is factual, for the supervision imposed on Weinberg was more than ade-. quate to the circumstances of this investigation. Weinberg recorded literally hundreds of conversations and -telephone calls outside of the agents' presence. “While Weinberg