420 F.2d 309 (2nd Cir. 1970), 392, United States v. Garcia
|Docket Nº:||392, 34120.|
|Citation:||420 F.2d 309|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vera GARCIA, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||January 14, 1970|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Argued Jan. 6, 1970.
J. Daniel Sagarin, Asst. U.S. Atty., for the District of Connecticut (Stewart H. Jones, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Donald G. Walsh, New Haven, Conn., for appellant.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge, and JUDD, District Judge. [a1]
Vera Garcia's appeal from her conviction on two counts of perjury and one count of filing a false statement before a federal grand jury in Connecticut is affirmed. The evidence from which the jury could find guilt was abundant, and we find no errors in the conduct of the trial or the charge of the court.
The appellant claims error because the government in securing her indictment, used the testimony given by her before one grand jury in the District of Connecticut on February 27, 1968 (and a statement filed there on June 16, 1967), and presented it to a different grand jury of the same district which, on February 18, 1969, returned the indictment on which she was tried and convicted. It is claimed that this use, without court approval, was a violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides in part:
'* * * a juror, attorney, interpreter, or stenographer * * * may disclose matters occurring before a grand jury only when so directed by the court * * *.'
except for disclosure
'* * * to the attorneys for the government for use in the performance of their duties.'
The remainder of the rule imposes limitations on any other disclosure which cannot be made without a direction by the court. 1 Consequently, it is urged
that the indictment should have been dismissed as the appellant asked by timely motion. We disagree.
The rule itself provides that disclosure 'may be made to the attorneys for the government for use in the performance of their duties.' Surely the performance of his duty by the United States Attorney required him to prosecute any perjury committed before a grand jury, and to do so before the same grand jury or any grand jury constituted for the district where the perjury had been committed. No purpose would be served by requiring the court to approve a use of grand jury minutes which...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP