Grand Juries Flashcards
U.S. v. Costello
RULE: In the federal system, the rules of evidence don’t apply to the grand jury, esp the rules of hearsay + illegal obtained forms of evidence (but privilege does). Thus, a grand jury may indict a defendant based solely on hearsay evidence
Tax evasion case about mobster, Castello. Gov’t brought pretextual prosecution for tax fraud. In the grand jury, they called an FBI agent who reviewed the data, but didn’t call the witnesses who did the actual transactions with Costello. This would be inadmissible hearsay at trial. Court held that this was ok – a grand jury indictment can be based on inadmissible hearsay because it’s not a trial, it’s a grand jury proceeding.
POLICY: Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be fast in the interest of justice and applying rules of evidence would complicate it and make it inefficient.
U.S. v. Williams
RULE: As a matter of constitutional law, the gov’t is not required to present exculpatory evidence to a federal grand jury
Therefore, an indictment remains valid even if the prosecution fails to disclose
substantial exculpatory evidence to the grand jury (Brady does not apply).
But, DoJ Policy requires AUSAs to submit substantial exculpatory evidence.
Case where defendant presented false documents for tax purposes. Williams contended that there were other documents that would exculpate him. The USAO presented the case with only inculpatory evidence, not the purported exculpatory evidence that Williams desired. Williams was convicted + appealed. SCOTUS reinstated indictment + held that a prosecution in a grand jury does not have an obligation to exculpate a defendant. This is b/c a grand jury proceeding is not an adversary proceeding to determine guilt, it’s just looking at the gov’t case to see if its sufficient to warrant a trial. Further, courts are not meant to supervise grand jury proceedings, it is an independent
Grand Jury Privileges
grand jury is confined by privilege concerns so the court can rule on that. (e.g., can’t compel a witness to testify if that communication is privileged - marriage exception/religious figure exception/5th amendment right against self-incrimination)
Illegally Seized Evidence
evidence that is illegally seized is admissible at grand jury but not at trial, (e.g., cops taking stuff without warrant), double jeopardy does not apply.
DoJ Manual on Grand Juries
USAO is limited by DOJ manual but isn’t law, so if it’s violated, not a basis to throw out indictment:
E.g., AUSA can’t go back to grand jury proceeding after one is tossed out (even if its constitutionally permissible)
Gov’t can’t use grand jury to obtain discovery after it has been agreed upon to bring charges
A witness needs to be given reasonable notice before a subpoena (pearl harbor rule).
An AUSA has to present substantial exculpatory evidence, like in Williams, the AUSA has to present it
Whenever it appears appropriate, if a witness is about to say something incriminating, an AUSA has to give them their 5th amendment warning
Information
If the state does not require an indictment for a particular crime, a prosecutors issues an information which recites the charges and is filed with the court,
NY Grand Juries
Stronger protections for Ds
i. Defendants have statutory right to testify before the grand jury. If DA doesn’t allow defendant to testify, then indictment gets thrown out but another grand jury can be brought/ Defendant’s usually don’t want to testify . This is b/c grand jury doesn’t find defendant guilty, but rather that there is probable cause + thus a testifying defendant would have to show that there is no case at all + would be on the record which can be used against him at trial.
ii. Defendant may request that the grand jury call additional witnesses (rarely happens)
iii. In NY, judges review an indictment for legal sufficiency and error (this is typically brought by a motion by the defendant for review to ensure that all of the charges are substantiated to look at minutes + instructions). Individual counts or whole indictments can be thrown out
iv. Defendants have a right to be accompanied by defense counsel during
proceedings, but, counsel not allowed to examine witnesses or raise objections; if need to consult have to go out in the hallway
v. Rules of evidence do apply in NY grand jury proceedings, but are relaxed (e.g. expert records don’t need expert witness
somewhat.
vi. There is general principle that conduct that is so unfair so as to impeach the integrity of the proceedings, then the indictment can get thrown away (e.g., cross going too far, failing to present super exculpatory evidence)
NY 180-80 Grand Jury rule:
A preliminary hearing is required to hold a defendant in bail pending indictment. The government must show probable cause within six days of an arrest, either through indictment or bring preliminary hearing and then do an indictment.
Grand Juries Generally
Not an adversary proceeding - one sided
Generally speaking, federal courts, do not review grand jury proceedings, either for sufficiency of evidence. Federal courts will review questions related to privilege and use of subpoena power.
Grand jury’s job is to decide whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime, very low burden of proof, and if so
Grand jury presentation is not an adversarial proceeding, usually only a presentation by the gov’t
Grand jury is secret and every juror is sworn to secrecy (this is to protect the witnesses + jurors from threats by defendant)
Independent of both executive and judicial branches. Thus, there can be a runaway jury (e.g., jury can call their own witnesses, impose charges, etc). Still has a duty to investigate.
if there is no indictment - then grand jury votes no true bill and no trial. But if indictment then can go forward with trial.
Federal Grand Juries
defendant doesn’t have a right to testify at all
Rules of evidence don’t apply
Policy Reasons for Grand Jury
DA can put a controversial case in front of grand jury: this happens often in date SA w/o evidence (DA puts both man + woman in front of grand jury)/police shootings (DA puts cop to testify fully in front of grand jury)
Grand jury can be viewed as the “conscience of the community” where they can vote no true bill and not charge the crime even if all of the elements are made out
Preliminary Hearing
A preliminary hearing is also similar to a grand jury in that it is made to protect the innocent from an unwarranted prosecution. Not used much in NY nor the federal system.
Can also do a preliminary hearing to try out the case before it goes to trial
Greenberg thinks that using preliminary hearing for SA victims is unfair and traumatizing them further
In some states like CO, there is no grand jury, only preliminary hearing.
Diff than grand jury b/c it is in front of judge rather than jury, defendant and his lawyer is present, and the defense lawyer can cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses (but this is limited by time), this is in open court unlike secret grand jury, and the defense can call its own witnesses too, the judge decides questions of admissibility, rather than the prosecutor and the judge also decides what specific charges are made by the evidence rather than the prosecutor
Streamlined presentation of the gov’ts case before a judge rather than a grand jury + the judge is to determine whether there is enough evidence to find probable cause
The gov’t has the low burden of proof, evidence is viewed in light most favorable to the gov’t (.e.g, if the witnesses are telling the truth)
