MATTER OF MAY 18, 1981 GRAND JURY
Decision Date | 19 February 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84 C 4495.,84 C 4495. |
Citation | 602 F. Supp. 772 |
Parties | In the Matter of the MAY 18, 1981 GRAND JURY. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty. Kings County, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Laura Drager, Michael Halberstam, Asst. Dist. Attys., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel).
Raymond J. Dearie, U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Gregory J. Wallance, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel).
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City (Arthur L. Liman, Colleen McMahon, New York City, of counsel), for Charles E. Schumer.
The United States Attorney and the Kings County District Attorney move pursuant to Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for an order allowing disclosure of certain federal grand jury testimony to the District Attorney. Congressman Charles E. Schumer, the subject of the grand jury investigation, opposes the motion.
All papers on the motion have been sealed. To the extent that facts in the record are mentioned in this opinion and have been published in New York State Court opinions, Schumer v. Holtzman, 94 A.D.2d 516, 465 N.Y.S.2d 522 (2d Dep't), aff'd as modified, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 454 N.E.2d 522, 467 N.Y.S.2d 182 (1983), the papers are deemed unsealed. The court does not use pseudonyms since the state court opinions name the parties and describe the pertinent facts. Cf. In the Matter of Frank Kitchen, 706 F.2d 1266, 1268 n. 1 (2d Cir.1983).
In 1981 and 1982 the United States Attorney's Office conducted a grand jury investigation into Schumer's conduct of his successful 1980 congressional campaign while he was a New York State Assemblyman. The inquiry focused on whether Schumer had engaged in criminally fraudulent conduct by permitting members of his Assembly staff to work on his congressional campaign while on the state payroll.
Following the investigation the United States Attorney recommended that Schumer be prosecuted. On January 17, 1983 the Justice Department closed the matter stating that it "is not appropriate for federal prosecution."
The Kings County District Attorney then commenced an investigation of Schumer's conduct. The United States Attorney turned over to her witness interview notes made prior to any testimony before the federal grand jury. Members of her office interviewed a number of the witnesses. The state inquiry is still active, but a state grand jury has not been empanelled.
On reviewing the District Attorney's notes, the United States Attorney gave her his office's opinion that the state investigation did not reveal a complete and accurate picture of the events of 1980. This motion followed to permit the state investigators to have access to the grand jury testimony. The United States Justice Department supports the motion.
The United States Attorney asserts that there are discrepancies between the grand jury testimony and the notes of the state interviews of the witnesses. The court assumes, without deciding, that material discrepancies do exist.
The grand jury is said to serve two functions, to uncover crimes deserving of prosecution and to protect the innocent by screening out charges not warranting prosecution. United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, ___, 103 S.Ct. 3133, 3137-38, 77 L.Ed.2d 743 (1983). The prohibition of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2) against disclosure of grand jury matters by, among others, a government attorney serves to promote these two ends. Id.; United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681-82, 78 S.Ct. 983, 985-86, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958).
Sells, supra, 463 U.S. at ___, 103 S.Ct. at 3138 (1983) quoting Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 219, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1673, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979) (footnotes and citation omitted).
But the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is not absolute. The Rule makes exceptions. Among them is the circumstance where a court directs disclosure "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i). To come within this exception the moving parties must show that the proposed uses of the grand jury material are related fairly directly to some identifiable litigation, pending or anticipated. United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476, ___, 103 S.Ct. 3164, 3167, 77 L.Ed.2d 785 (1983).
The movants must also demonstrate a particularized need for the material. The Rule does not mention this standard, but it has been established by the Supreme Court.
Sells, supra, 463 U.S. at ___, 103 S.Ct. at 3148.
The same standard of particularized need applies when government officials — federal or state — seek disclosure under this exception. Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., 460 U.S. 557, 572-73, & nn. 14-16, 103 S.Ct. 1356, 1364, & nn. 14-16, 75 L.Ed.2d 281 (1983); In re: Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F.2d 24, 36 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1068, 103 S.Ct. 1520, 75 L.Ed.2d 945 (1983).
The District Attorney contends that the state investigation is preliminary to a "judicial proceeding." She argues that a state grand jury proceeding is a judicial proceeding and the state investigation is clearly preliminary to such a proceeding, and that in any event she herself may commence a criminal case by filing a complaint. Schumer urges that the grand jury does not engage in a judicial proceeding but merely in activities preliminary to one and that thus the state investigation is merely preliminary to a preliminary proceeding.
In the Baggot case, the Supreme Court left open the "knotty question" of what sorts of proceedings, other than routine civil actions or criminal proceedings, might qualify as judicial proceedings. 463 U.S. at ___, 103 S.Ct. at 3166 n. 2. This court need not decide whether state grand jury proceedings are "judicial." Assuming the state investigation is preliminary to a judicial proceeding, the court concludes that the movants have not shown that the need for the testimony outweighs the interest in grand jury secrecy.
The public interest in the secrecy of what occurs before a grand jury varies depending on the stage of the investigation. Once a grand jury has terminated its inquiry most of the ends served by secrecy have been met. See, e.g., United States v. Moten, 582 F.2d 654, 663 (2d Cir.1978). However, two remain. See In re Petition to Inspect and Copy Grand Jury Materials, 576 F.Supp. 1275, 1281-82 (S.D.Fla. 1983), aff'd, 735 F.2d 1261 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 254, 83 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984).
First, disclosure may expose a target who has not been indicted to public ridicule or disrepute. See In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, supra, 665 F.2d at 33 and cases cited. Secrecy protects the innocent as well as facilitates pursuit of the guilty. United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503, 513, 63 S.Ct. 1233, 1238, 87 L.Ed. 1546 (1943). Although the fact that Schumer was the subject of federal investigation has been made public, his interest in preserving the secrecy of the grand jury testimony survives. See In re Petition to Inspect Grand Jury Materials, supra, 576 F.Supp. at 1282.
Second, the court must consider the effect of disclosure not only on a particular grand jury, but also on the functioning of future grand juries. Douglas Oil, supra, 441 U.S. at 222, 99 S.Ct. at 1674; see United States v. Sobotka, 623 F.2d 764, 767 (2d Cir.1980). To the extent that persons called before a grand jury are concerned that their testimony may one day be released, they may fear future retribution or social stigma, both described by the Supreme Court as "powerful deterrents" to the giving of grand jury testimony. Douglas Oil, supra, 441 U.S. at 219, 222, 99 S.Ct. at 1674.
In this case the force of these two interests is diminished in view of the persons to whom the material is sought to be released and the person to whom it relates.
It is not a private party who seeks disclosure. State and federal government officials charged with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
FAMILY HOUSING & LAW CLINIC ETC. v. Heckler
... ... At this stage of the litigation, the matter comes before the Court on defendants' motion seeking dismissal for lack of ... As we mentioned in Garcia v. Neagle, 660 F.2d 983 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153, 102 S.Ct. 1023, 71 L.Ed.2d 309 (1982), ... ...
-
In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig.
...3133. This risk is considerably more potent when disclosure is to private, as opposed to public, parties. Cf. In re May 18, 1981 Grand Jury, 602 F.Supp. 772, 775 (E.D.N.Y.1985) (“It is not a private party who seeks disclosure.... To give the District Attorney access to the materials does no......