Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. United States Galax Mirror Company v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | 491,Nos. 489,s. 489 |
| Parties | PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America. GALAX MIRROR COMPANY, Inc, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 80 S.Ct. 42.
Mr. Leland Hazard, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner Pittsburgh Plate glass co H. Graham Morison, Washington, D.C., for petitioners Galax Mirror Co. et al.
Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Petitioners stand convicted on a single-count indictment charging a conspiracy under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. They contend that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit them to inspect the grand jury minutes covering the testimony before that body of a key government witness at the trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, 260 F.2d 397. With reference to the present claim, it held that Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.,1 committed the inspection or not of grand jury minutes to the sound discretion of the trial judge and that in this instance, no abuse of that discretion had been shown. We granted certiorari limited to the question posed by this ruling. 358 U.S. 917, 79 S.Ct. 289, 3 L.Ed.2d 237. We conclude that in the circumstances of this case the trial court did not err in refusing to make Jonas' grand jury testimony available to petitioners for use in cross-examination.
The indictment returned in the case named as defendants seven corporations, all manufacturers of mirrors, and three of their officers. However, only three of the corporations are petitioners here, slong with one individual, J. A. Messer, Sr. The indictment charged a conspiracy to fix the price of plain plate glass mirrors sold in interestate commerce. It is not necessary for our purposes to detail the facts of this long trial, the record of which covers 860 pages. It is sufficient to say that the Government proved its case through 10 witnesses, the last of wom was Jonas. He was President of a large North Carolina mirror manufacturing company and had a reputation for independence in the industry. Although neither he nor his corporation was indicted, the latter was made a co-conspirator. The evidence indicates that the conspiracy was consummated at two meetings held on successive days during the week of the annual meeting of the Mirror Manufacturers Association in 1954 at Asheville, North Carolina. Jonas, not being a member of the Association, did not attend the convention. Talk at the convention regarding prices culminated in telephone calls by several representatives of mirror manufacturers to Jonas concerning his attitude on raising prices. On the day following these calls Jonas and three of the participants in the conspiracy met at an inn away from the convention headquarters and discussed 'prices.' Within three days thereafter each of the manufacturers announced an idential price increase, which was approximately 10 percent. Jonas' testimony, of course, was confined to the telephone calls and the meeting at the inn where the understanding was finalized. The Government admits that he was an 'important' witness. However, proof of the conspiracy was overwhelming aside from Jonas' testimony. While he was the only witness who characterized the outcome of the meetings as an 'agreement' on prices, no witness negatived this conclusion and the idential price lists that followed the meeting at the inn were little less than proof positive.
After the conclusion of Jonas' testimony, defense counsel interrogated him as to the number of times he appeared and the subject of his testimony before the grand jury. Upon ascertaining that Jonas had testified three times on 'the same general subject matter,' counsel moved for the delivery of the grand jury minutes. He stated that the petitioners had 'a right * * * to inspect the Grand Jury record of the testimony of this witness after he has completed his direct examination' relating to 'the same general subject matter' as his trial testimony.2 As authority for 'the automatic delivery of Grand Jury transcripts' under such circumstances counsel cited Jencks v. United States, 1957, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103. As previously indicated, the motion was denied.
It appears to us clear that Jencks v. United States, supra, is in nowise controlling here. It had nothing to do with grand jury proceedings and its language was not intended to encompass grand jury minutes. Likewise, it is equally clear that Congress intended to exclude those minutes from the operation of the so-called Jencks Act, 71 Stat. 595, 18 U.S.C. (Supp. V, 1958) § 3500, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3500.3
Petitioners concede, as they must, that any disclosure of grand jury minutes is covered by Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 6(e) promulgated by this Court in 1946 after the approval of Congress. In fact, the federal trial courts as well as the Courts of Appeals have been nearly unanimous in regarding disclosure as committed to the discretion of the trial judge.4 Our cases announce the same principle,5 and Rule 6(e) is but declaratory of it.6 As recently as last Term we characterized cases where grand jury minutes are used 'to impeach a witness, to refresh his recollection to test his credibility and the like' as instances of 'particularized need where the secrecy of the proceedings is lifted discretely and limitedly.' United States v. Procter & Gamble, 1958, 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S.Ct. 983, 987, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077.
Petitioners argue, however, that the trial judge's discretion under Rule 6(e) must be exercised in accordance with the rationale of Jencks; namely, upon a showing on cross-examination that a trial witness testified before the grand jury—and nothing more—the defense has a 'right' to the delivery to it of the witness' grand jury testimony.
This conclusion, however, runs counter to 'a long-established policy' of secrecy, United States v. Procter & Gamble, supra, 356 U.S. at page 681, 78 S.Ct. at page 986, older than our Nation itself. The reasons therefor are manifold, id., 356 U.S. at page 682, 78 S.Ct. at page 986, and are compelling when viewed in the light of the history and modus operandi of the grand jury. Its establishment in the Constitution 'as the sole method for preferring charges in serious criminal cases' indeed 'shows the high place it (holds) as an instrument of justice.' Costello v. United States, 1956, 350 U.S. 359, 362, 76 S.Ct. 406, 408, 100 L.Ed. 397. Ever since this action by the Fathers, the American grand jury, like that of England, 'has convened as a body of laymen, free from technical rules, acting in secret, pledged to indict no one because of prejudice and to free no one because of special favor.' Ibid. Indeed, indictments may be returned on hearsay, or for that matter, even on the knowledge of the grand jurors themselves. Id., 350 U.S. at pages 362, 363, 76 S.Ct. at pages 408, 409. To make public any part of its proceedings would inevitably detract from its efficacy. Grand jurors would not act with that independence required of an accusatory and inquisitorial body. Moreover, not only would the participation of the jurors be curtailed, but testimony would be parsimonious if each witness knew that his testimony would soon be in the hands of the accused. Especially is this true in antitrust proceedings where fear of business reprisal might haunt both the grand juror and the witness. And this 'go slow' sign would continue as realistically at the time of trial as theretofore.
It does not follow, however, that grand jury minutes should never be made available to the defense. This Court has long held that there are occasions, see United States v. Procter & Gamble, supra, 356 U.S. at 683, 78 S.Ct. at page 987, when the trial judge may in the exercise of his discretion order the minutes of a grand jury witness produced for use on his cross-examination at trial. Certainly 'disclosure is wholly proper where the ends of justice require it.' United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., supra, 310 U.S. at page 234, 60 S.Ct. at page 849.
The burden, however, is on the defense to show that 'a particularized need' exists for the minutes which outweighs the policy of secrecy. We have no such showing here. As we read the record the petitioners failed to show any need whatever for the testimony of the witness Jonas. They contended only that they had a 'right' to the transcript because it dealt with subject matter generally covered at the trial. Petitioners indicate that the trial judge required a showing of contradic- tion between Jonas' trial and grand jury testimony. Such a preliminary showing would not, of course, be necessary. While in a colloquy with counsel the judge did refer to such a requirement, we read his denial as being based on the breadth of petitioners' claim. Petitioners also claim error because the trial judge failed to examine the transcript himself for any inconsistencies. But we need not consider that problem because petitioners made no such request of the trial judge. The Court of Appeals apparently was of the view that even if the ria l judge had been requested to examine the transcript he would not have been absolutely required to do so. It is contended here that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reached a contrary conclusion. United States v. Spangelet, 258 F.2d 338. Be that as it may, resolution of that question must await a case where the issue is presented by the record. The short of it is that in the present case the petitioners did not invoke the discretion of the trial judge, but asserted a supposed absolute right, a right which we hold they did not have. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
In the words of the Court of Appeals, Jonas was the Government's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fiumara v. Higgins
...156 (1979) ("Douglas Oil"). A long-established policy, older than our Nation itself, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 399, 79 S.Ct. 1237, 1240, 3 L.Ed.2d 1323 (1959), maintains the secrecy of grand jury proceedings in federal courts, United States v. Procter & ......
-
Com. v. Tarver
...need was not demonstrated before the trial judge, or before this court. See generally Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 400, 79 S.Ct. 1237, 3 L.Ed.2d 1323 (1959). 7. The defendant contends that it was error to permit the introduction of a death certificate concernin......
-
Final Grand Jury Report Concerning Torrington Police Dept., In re
...v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 869-70, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 1848-49, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966); Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 400, 79 S.Ct. 1237, 1241, 3 L.Ed.2d 1323 (1959); United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 681-83, 78 S.Ct. 983, 985-87, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1......
-
United States v. Apodaca
...burden of showing "that a particularized need exists" that "outweighs the policy of secrecy." Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States , 360 U.S. 395, 400, 79 S.Ct. 1237, 3 L.Ed.2d 1323 (1959) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 399, 79 S.Ct. 1237 ("Petitioners concede, a......
-
Two Sherman Act Section 1 Dilemmas: Parallel Pricing, the Oligopoly Problem, and Contemporary Economic Theory
...inferred when simultaneous price increase fol-lows meeting among competitors at which higher prices were discussed),affdon other grounds, 360 U.S. 395 (1959).64ApexOilCo. v.DiMauro,822F.2d246,255(2dCir.),cert.denied, 484 U.S. 977 (1987); United States v. ChampionInt'lCorp., 557F.2d 1270 (9t......
-
The Identification and Proof of Horizontal Agreements under the Antitrust Laws
...Plate Glass Co. v, United States, 260 F.2d 397 (4thCir. 1958) (proof that defendants held secret meetings),affd on othergrounds, 360 U.S. 395 (1959).119 See. e.g., Apex Oil, 822 F.2d at 257 ("striking" similarity of defen-dant's separate notebook entries permits reasonable inference of cons......
-
Antitrust Compliance in Action
...inspect thegrandjurytranscriptcovering the key government wit-ness'priortestimony.Ina 5-4 opinion, the Court affirmed the judg-ment below, 360 U.S. 395 (1959).PPG'spetition for rehearing wasdenied, 361 U.S. 855 (1959). The Court's decision has been criticized.SeeHart,The Supreme Court 1958 ......