Section 4.22 Misconduct Before the Grand Jury

• Library: Criminal Practice 2012 Supp

VII. (§4.22) Misconduct Before the Grand Jury

There are more federal than state decisions regarding grand juries—probably as a result of the fact that the grand jury process evolves from the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Prosecutors have broad discretion regarding the conduct of grand jury proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Talbot, 825 F.2d 991 (6^th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042 (1988). This discretion allows the presentation of hearsay evidence or even evidence that is otherwise inadmissible at trial. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956). Only in the most egregious circumstances have indictments been dismissed for grand jury misconduct. See generally:

· United States v. Kouba, 822 F.2d 768, 773–74 (8^th Cir. 1987);

· United States v. Martino, 825 F.2d 754, 762 (3^rd Cir. 1987);

· United States v. Azad, 809 F.2d 291, 294 (6^th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1004 (1987);

· Porcaro v. United States, 784 F.2d 38, 44 (1^st Cir. 1986).

There is, however, a small body of law that contains at least the suggestion of relief regarding misconduct before the grand jury. Some of these reasons include the following:

1. Prosecutorial vindictiveness and conflict of interest. See United States v. Grabinski, 727 F.2d 681 (8^th Cir. 1984); United States v. Groves, 571 F.2d 450 (9^th Cir. 1978); United States v. DeMarco, 550 F.2d 1224 (9^th Cir. 1977).

2. Misleading the grand jury or failing to present appropriate exculpatory evidence. United States v. Benjamin, 852 F.2d 413 (9^th Cir. 1988); United States v. Hogan, 712 F.2d 757, 761–62 (2^nd Cir. 1983); United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132, 1134–37 (2^nd Cir. 1972).

3. Inappropriate comments or testimony by a prosecutor or the use of a pre-signed indictment. See United States v. McKie, 831 F.2d 819 (8^th Cir. 1987); United States v. Frantze, 655 F.2d 128, 138 (8^th Cir. 1981); United States v. Birdman, 602 F.2d 547 (3^rd Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1032 (1980); United States v. Gold, 470 F. Supp. 1336 (N.D. Ill. 1979).

4. Use of unauthorized personnel having access to grand jury material. See United States v. Tager, 638 F.2d 167 (10^th Cir. 1980).

5. Use of multiple grand juries as harassment. See United States v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 273 F. Supp. 810 (N.D. Ill. 1967).

6. Failure to properly instruct the grand jury. See United States v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016, 1029 (9^th Cir. 1973).

7. Unauthorized persons before the grand jury. See...