GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS OF OTHER WITNESSES
RULE 16(A)(3) provides as follows: “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 6 and subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this rule, these rules do not relate to discovery or inspection of recorded proceedings of a grand jury.”
- Defendant’s Testimony
Rule 16(a)(1)(A) provides for mandatory disclosure of a defendant’s own grand jury testimony which relates to the offense charged.
- (1) Corporate Defendant
Corporate defendants are entitled to inspect any testimony given by its officers, direct agents, and employees before the grand jury U.S. v. Tobin packing Co., Inc., 362 F.Supp. 1127 (N.D.N.Y. 1973); U. S. v. Bally Mfg. Corp., 345 F.Supp. 410 (E.D. La. 1972). The
test used to determine whether the grand jury witness was a representative of the corporation is the same test as set out in Rule 16(a)(1)(A). U.S. v. White Ready-Mix Concrete Co., 449 F.Supp. 808 (N.D. Ohio, 1978).
-
Witness Testimony.
Brady v. Maryland may require disclosure of exculpatory grand jury testimony of a government witness, but Brady imposes no time limits on such disclosure that are inconsistent with the Jencks Act. U. S. v. Campagnola, 592 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Eisenberg, 469 F.2d 156 (8th Cir. 1972).
-
Rule 6(e) Discovery.
FED. R. CRIM. PRO. Rule 6(e)(2) provides generally for secrecy of grand jury proceedings. One exception for defense discovery appears in Rule 6(E)(ii)”The court may authorize disclosure–at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs–of a grand-jury matter:…at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;”
Particularized Need.
A “strong showing of a particularized need” is required to justify pre-trial disclosure of grand jury testimony. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 79 S. Ct. 1237 , reh. denied, 361 US 855 (1959); United States v. Rubin, 559 F.2d 975, reh. denied,
564 F.2d 98, 572 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1977), vacated, 439 U.S. 810, 99 S.Ct. 67 (1978), on
remand, 591 F.2d 278 (1979); United States v. Harbin, 585 F.2d 904 (8th Cir. 1978) (alleging that the transcript might reveal a ground on which to dismiss the indictment and could be used in cross-examination was insufficient).
- Examples of Need:
- To establish a double jeopardy defense when a Los Angeles grand jury transcript was requested by a Texas defendant, S. v. Hughes, 413 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1969).
- To enable counsel to investigate well-documented suspicions of jury-tampering. United States Moton, 582 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1978), on remand, 463 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
