Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Devastated by Tornado

A huge tornado tears through an Oklahoma City suburb.  Slideshow 

Photo

Message of humility

A religious fraternity in Rio considers the election of Pope Francis, a confirmation of their beliefs in poverty and simplicity.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

U.S. top court won't review "Die Hard" director's guilty plea

Film director John McTiernan leaves following his arraignment in the Pellicano case at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles, California April 17, 2006.

Credit: Reuters

Related Topics

Photo

Billboard Music Awards

All the highlights from the show.  Slideshow 

WASHINGTON | Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:48am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - John McTiernan, director of the films "Die Hard" and "The Hunt for Red October," lost his bid on Monday to have the U.S. Supreme Court review his guilty plea and one-year prison sentence for perjury and lying to the FBI.

The Supreme Court's action could clear the way for the 62-year-old McTiernan to begin serving his prison term.

Charles Sevilla, a lawyer for McTiernan, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The court declined to consider whether lower courts erred in refusing to suppress a recording in which prosecutors said McTiernan discussed an illegal wiretap.

Prosecutors had accused McTiernan of lying about having hired former private investigator Anthony Pellicano, who represented many Hollywood stars, to wiretap a film producer.

McTiernan pleaded guilty in 2006 after the FBI obtained a recording in which the men discussed the wiretap, but later withdrew his guilty plea after hiring a new lawyer.

He was then indicted a second time and, after failing to suppress the recording, entered a conditional guilty plea allowing him to appeal. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that appeal last August.

McTiernan said the 9th Circuit used the wrong standard to evaluate when suppression is proper, by insisting that the secret taping be "essential" to a criminal plan.

He argued that the recording advanced a criminal plan because it was a "reminder" of the illegal acts that Pellicano planned to commit, but the 9th Circuit disagreed.

"Recording a conversation for the purpose of creating a reminder list is not an integral part of the execution of an illegal wiretap," and is therefore not made for the purpose of committing any criminal act, that court said.

The case is McTiernan v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-733.

(Editing by Howard Goller and Christopher Wilson)

Comments (0)
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.