In re Jury

• Decision Date: 07 April 1931
• Citation: 204 Wis. 409,235 N.W. 789
• Parties: IN RE GRAND JURY REPORT. PETITION OF WILLIAMS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

204 Wis. 409

235 N.W. 789

IN RE GRAND JURY REPORT. PETITION OF WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 7, 1931.

Appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of Milwaukee County; George A. Shaughnessy, Judge.

Petition by Clifton Williams to strike from the files of the municipal court a report of the grand jury. From an order denying the application, the petitioner appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

The petition herein was filed January 29, 1930; and the order dated September 19, 1930.

The petitioner sought to have stricken from the files of the municipal court a report made by the grand jury and filed May 7, 1929. The petition recites that Mr. Williams has been a member of the bar for more than twenty years, and that the grand jury impaneled February 28, 1929, was in session from time to time up to and including the 7th day of May, 1929, during which time there was no report of progress, and that on the 7th day of May the jury made the report in question to the municipal court and the report filed as part of its records.

The petitioner recites his connection with the city of Milwaukee as an attorney employed on a per diem basis, and alleges that it was the understanding that he could carry on his private practice; that prior to the impaneling of the grand jury he had been employed by the attorneys of a railroad company to assist in certain condemnation proceedings, and that the report dealt with these matters among other things to the injury of the petitioner, that the report was unauthorized, and asks that it be stricken from the files of the municipal court.

Upon the matter being submitted to the court, it was determined that the report did not violate the law of secrecy, and that “the report of the grand jury was filed with the municipal court on May 7, 1929. It remained on file in that court as a public record without any protest being made by anyone until January 29, 1930, when petitioner filed his petition. * * * He permitted the filing of this report to go unchallenged for a period of almost nine months. * * *” The application to expunge and strike such report from the records of the court was denied and the court, in its opinion, stated:

“Having held that a grand jury has the authority to make a report as long as it did not point out any individual as the subject of public criticism or opprobrium, I now hold that the report did not so point out the petitioner as to permit him to request that such parts of the report be stricken. It has been at no time claimed that the report of the grand jury was false. The grand jury states: ‘Our attention has been called to instances where a member of the city attorney's staff has, while so employed, accepted retainers from a local carrier, although we do not charge any detriment has accrued to the municipality by reason of such retainer.’ This is the statement of a condition which petitioner admits existed prior to the time that such report was made. The report does not charge any person with the commission of any crime, and does not even charge that any detriment has accrued to the municipality by reason of such retainer. The report, however, goes on to say that in the opinion of the grand jurors, ‘such practice is bad in principle, opens to a wide field of temptation, raises grave possibility of positive damage in case of future conflict of interests, and gives rise to suspicion, distrust and lack of confidence on the part of the general public.’ This, too, is a statement of what the grand jury believed would be the result if such condition was allowed to continue.

The report does not criticize or condemn any individual, nor does it charge any person with misconduct in transacting the business with which he was intrusted. The report criticizes a practice which they believed it would be bad to permit to continue. It does not reflect upon any individual, nor charge him or attempt to charge him with misconduct.”

Swietlik & Burns, of Milwaukee, for appellant.

John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., and George A. Bowman, Dist. Atty., and Oliver L. O'Boyle, Deputy Dist. Atty., both of Milwaukee, for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, J.

[1][2] The controlling issue involved in this appeal is whether or not the grand jurors had the right to file the report in question with the court. The petitioner urges that the report should have been stricken out in its entirety or at least those portions thereof which he claims refer to him, the portions being specifically set out in the petition which he filed. This raises the question as to whether or not a grand jury has legal authority to file a report other than the report of progress and the returning of indictments. It is a fact that at various times courts have accepted such reports made by grand juries, and this seems to have been done upon the theory presented and very ably discussed by the learned trial court in his opinion at the time of his decision upon petitioner's application. At times these reports have gone unchallenged. At other times they have been challenged, and requests have been made to strike them from the files. When an issue has been joined, the rulings of courts of last resort in the vast majority of instances have been to the effect that a grand jury has no authority to make a report criticizing individuals either by name or by inference, and that the grand jury's powers and authority are limited to those conferred upon it by law. It appears that in most of the states these powers of the grand jury are rather definitely fixed by statute. In...