Matthew Byrne

Matthew Byrne’s role in Daniel Ellsberg’s trial turned disclosures connected to Watergate into questions the government had to confront in court. After learning that Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy had supervised the burglary of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office, Byrne pressed the government to search again for evidence that Ellsberg had been overheard on a wiretap. The revelations helped expose misconduct surrounding the prosecution; on May 11, 1973, Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg.

Role in the Ellsberg Trial

Byrne presided over Ellsberg’s trial in Los Angeles. The connection to Watergate emerged when, on April 27, 1973, he announced that he had learned from Watergate prosecutors that Hunt and Liddy had supervised the 1971 burglary of the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. The disclosure linked the break-in to the case against Ellsberg and made the conduct behind the prosecution part of the trial’s immediate context.

Inquiry into Wiretapping

In early May, while the prosecution maintained that there had been no taps involving Ellsberg, Byrne asked the government to search its records again for evidence that Ellsberg might have been overheard on any wiretap. The request did not itself establish that a tap had occurred; it required the government to revisit a claim that was central to the fairness of the proceedings. The subsequent search confirmed that Ellsberg had been overheard on a tap of Morton Halperin’s home telephone, and revealed that the administration had not disclosed all wiretap information to Ellsberg’s defense attorneys.

Dismissal and Significance

Several days after the renewed search brought the undisclosed wiretap evidence to light, Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg. He stated that government misconduct had incurably infected the prosecution. His action marks the judicial consequence of revelations that connected the Los Angeles case to the wider pattern of clandestine operations and concealed surveillance: evidence about government conduct was no longer peripheral to the case, but decisive to whether it could proceed.