Is a witness charged with contempt for failing to answer questions before a grand jury entitled to prove that the questions were based on illegal electronic surveillance?

[650 P.2d 309] A witness charged with contempt for failing to answer questions before a grand jury is entitled to prove that the grand jury questions were based on illegal electronic surveillance and the government will be compelled to disclose whether there was electronic surveillance. (Gelbard v. United States (1972) 408 U.S. 41, 47, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 2360, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 et seq.) Florida has also held that a witness summoned before the grand jury may compel disclosure of electronic surveillance prior to the grand jury hearing. (In re Grand Jury Investigation (Cobo) (Fla.1973) 287 So.2d 43, 46 et seq.) The issue presented in the instant case is whether the rendering state, in addition, should inquire into electronic surveillance or whether such inquiry should be left to proceedings in the requesting state.

The uniform act provides a speedy and effective procedure to summon witnesses living in another state. (United States ex rel. Drew v. Myers (3d Cir. 1964) 327 F.2d 174, 182.) To permit the witness to compel a search in the rendering state to discover whether there has been electronic surveillance would greatly hamper the effectiveness of the act.