United States v. Byoir, 11260.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 11260.,11260. |
| Citation | 147 F.2d 336 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BYOIR. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Horace L. Flurry and Earl A. Jinkinson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for appellant.
John Touchstone, of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
Carl Byoir and others were indicted for conspiracy in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas. On Feb. 26, 1944, an order of dismissal on a motion for nolle prosequi was entered by the Court. A prosecution of the same defendants on charges in substance the same was at once commenced by an information based on an affidavit of the district attorney in the District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois. On a warrant issued pursuant to the information Carl Byoir was arrested in New York. He resisted removal for trial, and a hearing was set before the District Judge there, Judge Leibell, on the question whether there was probable cause to believe Byoir guilty. The district attorney's affidavit made as the foundation for the information referred to the evidence produced before the grand jury in its consideration of the Texas indictment, as being in part the source of his knowledge of the facts. Byoir insisted that he should have access to the record of what had transpired before the grand jury to use in the removal hearing. Judge Leibell postponed the removal hearing to permit Byoir to get access, if he could, to the record of the grand jury hearing, without ruling on the admissibility of it in the removal hearing. Byoir thereupon petitioned the District Judge of the Texas court, heading his petition as in the old criminal case there, setting up the situation, and praying that the district attorney be required to permit inspection of the minutes of the grand jury hearing and allow extracts therefrom, or that Byoir be furnished with a copy of the minutes and documents introduced. The United States moved to dismiss the petition as an unwarranted invasion of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, and a fishing expedition to learn the details of the Government's case. The Texas judge overruled the motion to dismiss, and held he had discretionary power over the record of the grand jury proceedings, notwithstanding the prosecution in his court was at an end, and he ordered the district attorney of his court, in whose hands the record was, to permit Byoir or his attorneys to examine the grand jury minutes relating to the evidence offered before the grand jury "in so far as the evidence relates or pertains in anywise to the petitioner Carl Byoir"; and that the stenographic reporter who reported and transcribed the proceedings be relieved from his oath of secrecy to that extent, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitch v. United States, No. 17-15016
...behind the secrecy imposed upon a grand jury as to its proceedings, where the interests of justice demand it."); United States v. Byoir , 147 F.2d 336, 336–37 (5th Cir. 1945) (acknowledging that a court "had discretionary authority to permit disclosure of what happened before the grand jury......
-
United States v. Rose
...2d 791; United States v. Andolschek, supra, 142 F.2d 503; United States v. Byoir, D.C.Tex.1945, 58 F.Supp. 273, but see United States v. Byoir, 5 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 336; Edwards v. United States, 1941, 312 U.S. 473, 61 S.Ct. 669, 85 L.Ed. 957, and we add Havenor v. State, 125 Wis. 444, 10......
-
1975-2 Grand Jury Investigation of Associated Milk Producers, Inc., In re
...In re Biaggi, 2 Cir., 1973, 478 F.2d 489, Gibson v. United States, 1968, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 403 F.2d 166, and United States v. Byoir, 5 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 336, are also inapposite to this ...
-
State of Ill. v. F.E. Moran, Inc.
...in a separate court, though in the latter situation appeals were allowed (probably incorrectly, as we shall see) in United States v. Byoir, 147 F.2d 336, 337 (5th Cir.1945), and Gibson v. United States, 403 F.2d 166, 167 (D.C.Cir.1968). The objection to allowing an appeal is the same in eit......