United States v. Young
Decision Date | 08 May 1980 |
Docket Number | No. TY-79-33-CR.,TY-79-33-CR. |
Citation | 494 F. Supp. 57 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. John Marcus YOUNG. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
John H. Hannah, Jr., U. S. Atty., Jeff Baynham, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., for plaintiff.
Warren Burnett, Odessa, Tex., William H. Kugle, Jr., Athens, Tex., for defendant.
JUSTICE, Chief Judge.
John Marcus Young, M.D., waived his right to indictment and entered a guilty plea to each count of a three-count information filed against him by the United States of America. The information charged Dr. Young with the one count of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), in that he knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully dispensed a schedule two narcotic controlled substance for other than a legitimate medical purpose. The information further charged Dr. Young with two counts of violating 21 U.S.C. § 844(a), in that he knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully possessed a schedule two narcotic controlled substance not obtained or possessed pursuant to a valid prescription or for a legitimate medical purpose. Dr. Young received a prison sentence on January 4, 1980, and is presently incarcerated. On January 28, 1980, the United States requested, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(C)(i), judicial authorization to disclose to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners the transcripted testimony of nine witnesses who testified before a grand jury which investigated Dr. Young. The issue now before the court is whether to permit such disclosure.1
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(C)(i) permits disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury "when so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." Although the Government can point to no pending judicial proceeding in which the requested transcripts might be used, it argues that the judicial proceeding requirement of Rule 6 is satisfied because Dr. Young is authorized by statute to appeal judicially2 a Board decision to cancel, revoke, or suspend his license.3 It has not been shown, however, that the Board has even scheduled a hearing to determine whether or not to take adverse action against Dr. Young. Regardless, merely demonstrating that Dr. Young has a right to appeal a possible adverse Board decision if a hearing is held does not satisfy the judicial proceeding requirement of Rule 6.
"Parties seeking grand jury transcripts under Rule 6(e) must show that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding . . . ." Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1674, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979) (emphasis supplied). Cf. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 234, 60 S.Ct. 811, 849, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940) ( ); In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d 489, 492 (2d Cir. 1973) ( ); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 483 F.Supp. 422, 424 (E.D.Pa.1979) (). The Government has failed to identify any manner in which the requested transcripts could be used to avoid injustice in a judicial proceeding. Disclosure of grand jury materials preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding has been perceived to be in the interest of justice in situations where such materials are needed (1) to refresh the recollection of a witness who will testify at trial or (2) to impeach witnesses or test their credibility at trial. See, e. g., Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1674, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979); Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966); Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 79 S.Ct. 1237, 3 L.Ed.2d 1323 (1959); United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958); State v. United States Steel Corp., 546 F.2d 626, 631 (5th Cir. 1977); Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. City of Fort Pierce, 323 F.2d 233, 241 (5th Cir. 1963) ().4 Neither the Government nor the Board had made the court aware of such needs.
Focusing on Dr. Young's right judicially to appeal adverse action by the Board, the government cites several cases in support of the proposition that it is the connection between the proceeding in which the grand jury material is used and a future judicial proceeding which determines whether the "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding" requirement has been met. See Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894 (7th Cir. 1973); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 1958); United States v. Salanitro, 437 F.Supp. 240 (D.Neb.1977), aff'd sub nom., In the Matter of Disclosure of Testimony Before the Grand Jury, 580 F.2d 281 (8th Cir. 1978); In re Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F.Supp. 1219 (D.D.C.1974). In light of Douglas Oil, it appears incorrect to focus on the relationship between proceedings rather than to focus on the actual use of grand jury material which is released. Application of Rule 6 should not become a game in which parties secure release of grand jury material for use in a non-judicial proceeding merely by showing some relationship between a non-judicial proceeding and a future judicial proceeding. The phrase "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding" should, at the least, mean that requested grand jury material will be used in preparation for a judicial proceeding that is more than a remote potentiality.5 Even if the Board planned to hold an administrative hearing, therefore, this fact alone would not justify production of the requested transcripts in the absence of showing that production is sought to prevent injustice in a judicial proceeding.
It is, moreover, plain that the Board intends to use the requested transcripts for investigative purposes, not to prevent injustice in a judicial proceeding. The body of the Board's letter to the United States Attorney states:
It is doubtful that the Board could more explicitly have requested the transcripts for investigative purposes. Disclosure of grand jury transcripts for such purposes has been condemned.
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 309 F.2d 440, 443-44 (3d Cir. 1962) (citation omitted).
The grand jury is not an investigative tool at the disposal of the SEC or any other government agency, and the grand jury process may not be abused by allowing its work-product to be funnelled to other government agencies which happen to have an interest in a subject which a grand jury has examined.
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 414 F.Supp. 74, 76 (S.D.N.Y.1976).6 See City of Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 210 F.Supp. 486, 490 (E.D.Pa.1962) () Cf. United States v. Stanford, 589 F.2d 285, 292 (7th Cir. 1978) ( ).
Even if the judicial proceeding requirement were met in this case, disclosure is inappropriate because the government has made an insufficient showing of need for the disclosure of the requested transcripts. The extent of the need that must be shown to justify disclosure of grand jury materials has been variously stated. It has been held that the requesting party must show that "the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy." Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1674, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979). It has also been held that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kluger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 26124-83.
...not to assist in preparation or conduct of a judicial proceeding. disclosure under (C)(i) is not permitted. See United States v. Young. 494 F. Supp. 57, 60-61 (ED Tex. 1980). ‘ (Emphasis in original; fn. ref. omitted.) 4. ‘Second, because the government takes an active part in the activitie......
-
Sells, In re, 3
...is not to assist in preparation or conduct of a judicial proceeding, disclosure under (C)(i) is not permitted. See United States v. Young, 494 F.Supp. 57, 60-61 (ED Tex.1980). 103 S.Ct. at 3167 (emphasis in original) (footnotes Here, the primary purpose of disclosure was to allow IRS agents......
-
United States v. Baggot
...is not to assist in preparation or conduct of a judicial proceeding, disclosure under (C)(i) is not permitted. See United States v. Young, 494 F.Supp. 57, 60-61 (ED Tex.1980). It follows that disclosure is not appropriate for use in an IRS audit of civil tax liability, because the purpose o......
-
IN RE APRIL 1977 GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, Misc. No. 77-144.
...adverse determination has in fact been made. In re J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 622 F.2d 166, 171 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Young, 494 F.Supp. 57, 59 (E.D. Tex.1980). 2. Factual relationship between subject matter of the administrative investigation or proceeding and a future judic......