New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I have known Ms. Orr for over a decade and she is an excellent criminal defense attorney with high ethical standards." by Peer Attorney Read More
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "The best of the best above all the rest. Accept no substitutes." by Richard R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. Read More


Rule 16(A)(3) provides as follows: “Except 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.


Rule 16(a)(1)(A) provides for mandatory disclosure of a defendant’s own grand jury testimony which relates to the offense charged.


Corporate defendants are entitled to inspect any testimony given by its officers, directors, agents, and employees before the grand jury. US v. Tobin Packaging Co., Inc., 362 F. Supp. 1127 (N.DN.Y. 1973); US 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). US v. White Ready-Mix Concrete Co., 449 F. Supp. 808 (N.D. Ohio, 1978).


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. US v. Campagnuola, 592 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979); US v. Eisenberg, 469 F.2d 156 (8th Cir. 1972).


FED. R. CRIM. P. Rule 6(e) provides generally for secrecy of grand jury proceedings. One exception for defense discovery appears in Rule 6(e)(3)( C). “Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made …(i.e.) when permitted by a court at the request of a defendant, upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the Grand Jury.”


A “strong showing of a particularized need” is required to justify pre-trial disclosure of grand jury testimony. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. US; US v. Rubin, 559 F.2d 975, reh. den., 564 F.2d 98, 572 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1977), vac’d, 99 S.Ct. 67 (1978), on remand, 591 F.2d 278 (1979); US 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, US Hughes, 413 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1969).
  • To enable counsel to investigate well-documented suspicions of jury- tampering. US v. Moton, 582 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1978), on remand, 463 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact