United States v. Garcia, 392
| Decision Date | 14 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket 34120.,No. 392,392 |
| Citation | 420 F.2d 309 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vera GARCIA, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
J. Daniel Sagarin, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the District of Connecticut (Stewart H. Jones, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Donald G. Walsh, New Haven, Conn., for appellant.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge, and JUDD, District Judge.*
Vera Garcia's appeal from her conviction on two counts of perjury and one count of filing a false statement before a federal grand jury in Connecticut is affirmed. The evidence from which the jury could find guilt was abundant, and we find no errors in the conduct of the trial or the charge of the court.
The appellant claims error because the government in securing her indictment, used the testimony given by her before one grand jury in the District of Connecticut on February 27, 1968 (and a statement filed there on June 16, 1967), and presented it to a different grand jury of the same district which, on February 18, 1969, returned the indictment on which she was tried and convicted. It is claimed that this use, without court approval, was a violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides in part:
The remainder of the rule imposes limitations on any other disclosure which cannot be made without a direction by the court.1 Consequently, it is urged that the indictment should have been dismissed as the appellant asked by timely motion. We disagree.
The rule itself provides that disclosure "may be made to the attorneys for the government for use in the performance of their duties." Surely the performance of his duty by the United States Attorney required him to prosecute any perjury committed before a grand jury, and to do so before the same grand jury or any grand jury constituted for the district where the perjury had been committed. No purpose would be served by requiring the court to approve a use of grand jury minutes which is implicit in the duties of the United States Attorney.
There has never been any question of the right of government attorneys to use grand jury minutes, without prior court approval, in preparation for trial and even to make them public at trial to the extent of referring to such minutes during the examination of witnesses. I Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, Criminal, § 107, and cases cited therein at notes 16 and 17 (1969). If government attorneys have the right to use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitch v. United States, No. 17-15016
...P. 6 advisory committee's notes to 1983 amendment (citing Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. , 310 U.S. at 150, 60 S.Ct. 811 ; United States v. Garcia , 420 F.2d 309 (2d Cir. 1970) ). Finally, in 1985, the rule was amended to allow disclosure to state and local government employees, following the exampl......
-
United States v. Slawik
...exact arguments in support of the present motion were made before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Garcia, 420 F.2d 309 (C.A.2, 1970) and there rejected. In the Garcia case, the defendant had been convicted of two counts of perjury and one count of filing a fa......
-
Grand Jury Subpoena of Flanagan, In re
...Disclosures of grand jury minutes have been permitted by the court when relevant to a motion to dismiss an indictment, United States v. Garcia, 420 F.2d 309 (2d Cir. 1970), to a double jeopardy claim or challenge of search warrants, United States v. Hughes, 413 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir. 1969), or......
-
U.S. v. Malatesta
...which the disclosure of the testimony of only those witnesses no longer available was approved; this use is discussed and disapproved in Garcia, supra. See also 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 107, at 177 example, in United States v. Garcia, 2 Cir. 1970, 420 F.2d 309, t......