Doe v. Rosenberry, No. 244

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtCLARK, , HAND, Circuit , and BRENNAN
Citation255 F.2d 118
PartiesJohn DOE, an Attorney, Appellant, v. Samuel L. ROSENBERRY, David L. Benetar, Samuel M. Chapin, Horace S. Manges, Alexander Caldwell Neave, Stuart N. Scott, W. Mason Smith, Jr., David Teitelbaum, Stephen P. Duggan, Jr., Joseph E. Dyer, John A. Gifford, James H. Halpin, Roger Bryant Hunting, Murray Foster Johnson, Carlyle E. Maw, F. W. H. Adams, Ernest J. Ellenwood, John D. Garrison, Edgar M. Souza and Harris B. Steinberg, Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 244,Docket 24875.
Decision Date08 May 1958

255 F.2d 118 (1958)

John DOE, an Attorney, Appellant,
v.
Samuel L. ROSENBERRY, David L. Benetar, Samuel M. Chapin, Horace S. Manges, Alexander Caldwell Neave, Stuart N. Scott, W. Mason Smith, Jr., David Teitelbaum, Stephen P. Duggan, Jr., Joseph E. Dyer, John A. Gifford, James H. Halpin, Roger Bryant Hunting, Murray Foster Johnson, Carlyle E. Maw, F. W. H. Adams, Ernest J. Ellenwood, John D. Garrison, Edgar M. Souza and Harris B. Steinberg, Appellees.

No. 244, Docket 24875.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 11, 1958.

Decided May 8, 1958.


255 F.2d 119

Boris Kostelanetz, Corcoran, Kostelanetz & Gladstone, Arthur Karger, Jules Ritholz, of counsel, for appellant.

Frederick H. Block, Frank H. Gordon, of counsel, for appellees.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, HAND, Circuit Judge, and BRENNAN, District Judge.

HAND, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from an order of Judge Dawson, denying a motion by the plaintiff that the Grievance Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York be directed to return to the grand jury of the Southern District of New York the transcript of the testimony of all witnesses taken before that body and to surrender all copies of that testimony. The motion also asked that the Grievance Committee be forbidden to use the testimony or any information derived from it and that the Committee be stayed from any investigation "related to the use of aforesaid grand jury minutes."

The facts were as follows. The plaintiff is a member of the New York Bar against whom the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York preferred "charges of corruption in government and * * * criminal activity" as "a former group chief in the Intelligence Unit of the Internal Revenue Service." The grand jury failed to indict; but having finished its investigation on September 21, 1955, it "unanimously voted that the activities of the appellant be referred to the Grievance Committee * * * by the United States Attorney." The United States Attorney thereupon presented the issue to the Committee, whose own attorney filed with it a charge against the plaintiff, and thereafter — with the support of the United States Attorney — obtained from Judge Dawson an order making available to the Committee the transcripts of minutes of the grand jury testimony. The Committee began a hearing under § 90(6) of the New York Judiciary Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 30, but before its completion the plaintiff moved before Judge Dawson that the transcripts should be returned and for other incidental relief. It is from an order denying all relief that the plaintiff has appealed. We...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 practice notes
  • Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., Matter of, Nos. 81-2077
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 3 Septiembre 1982
    ...Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894 (7th Cir. 1973) (disclosure decision made by federal court); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. VI. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's finding that disclosure of the Miller grand jury materials......
  • Sealed Motion, In re, No. M
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 21 Julio 1989
    ...process is a judicial proceeding. The term judicial proceeding has been given a broad interpretation by the courts. Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir.1958) (Under the rule permitting disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury in connection with a judicial proceeding, a hearin......
  • United States v. Young, No. TY-79-33-CR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • 8 Mayo 1980
    ...proceeding" requirement has been met. See Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894 (7th Cir. 1973); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958); United States v. Salanitro, 437 F.Supp. 240 (D.Neb.1977), aff'd sub nom., In the Matter of Disclosure of Testimony Before......
  • U.S. v. Stanford, Nos. 77-2092
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 14 Diciembre 1978
    ...be "determinable by a court," Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1973), Quoting Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958), it is nevertheless preliminary to such proceedings. See United States v. Universal Manufacturing Co., 525 F.2d 808 (8th ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
66 cases
  • Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., Matter of, Nos. 81-2077
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 3 Septiembre 1982
    ...Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894 (7th Cir. 1973) (disclosure decision made by federal court); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. VI. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's finding that disclosure of the Miller grand jury materials......
  • Sealed Motion, In re, No. M
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 21 Julio 1989
    ...process is a judicial proceeding. The term judicial proceeding has been given a broad interpretation by the courts. Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir.1958) (Under the rule permitting disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury in connection with a judicial proceeding, a hearin......
  • United States v. Young, No. TY-79-33-CR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • 8 Mayo 1980
    ...proceeding" requirement has been met. See Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894 (7th Cir. 1973); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958); United States v. Salanitro, 437 F.Supp. 240 (D.Neb.1977), aff'd sub nom., In the Matter of Disclosure of Testimony Before......
  • U.S. v. Stanford, Nos. 77-2092
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 14 Diciembre 1978
    ...be "determinable by a court," Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1973), Quoting Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958), it is nevertheless preliminary to such proceedings. See United States v. Universal Manufacturing Co., 525 F.2d 808 (8th ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT