Court Subpoenas Files on Interpreter In

Croatians’ Case
  By Dena Kleiman Special to The New York Times

 Nov. 23, 1976

A New York State Supreme Court justice yesterday ordered the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Justice Department‐and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to turn over all records
concerning an interpreter assigned to the Croatian airliner hijacking case who has been
accused of serving as a police informant.

In so doing, Justice James J. Leff denied a motion by the agencies to quash a subpoena for the
records, in which it was disclosed that files did exist on the interpreter, James F. O'Brien, but
that he had never been employed by the agencies. In fact, the files show, he was once rejected
for a job with the C.I.A.

A spokesman for the United States Attorney's Office said that it had not yet been decided
whether the decision would be appealed.

Mr. O'Brien had been assigned as an interpreter to five Croatian nationals allegedly involved
in hijacking a Chicagobound T.W.A. flight last Sept. 10. He was dismissed last month when
the Manhattan District Attoney's Office disclosed that he had been supplying the police with
confidential information obtained from conversations between the defendants and their
lawyers.

Justice Leff has been conducting a‐hearing at 100 Centre Street to clarify Mr. O'Brien's
involvement, but thus far the proceeding has raised more questions than it has answered.

Defense lawyers said yesterday that if the documents were not produced, Mr. O'Brien's role
would never be resolved.

According to papers filed to quash the subpoena, Mr. O'Brien had applied for a job with the
C.I.A. in 1961—when he was 21 years old and a student at Dartmouth—but he was rejected.
The F.B.I. acknowledged that it also had a file on him, but that he had never been employed‐
by them and had never been paid as an informant.

Richard J. Weisberg, an assistant United States Attorney, argued to quash the subpoena on the
ground that the Federal Government had “sovereign immunity” and could not be ordered by a
state court to produce documents in addition, he told the judge that the records requested were
“sensitive” and had no bearing on the immediate case.

J. Jeffrey Weisenfeld, a defense attorney in the case, argued that the case was a unique one in
that Mr. O'Brien‐had become involved in the state proceeding as a result of a recommendation
by, the Federal Government.
According to the testimony Mr. O'Brien had first been assigned to the case by, the United
States Attorney's office in Brooklyn upon the recommendation of the State Department and
the Department of Justice in Washington. Mr. O'Brien had been employed part‐time by the
State Department as an interpreter assigned to extensive travel with visiting dignitaries. Until
the hijacking, he had never served as a court interpreter.