Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40735/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40735-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Gerald Phillip Wooten
Appellant

Document Text:

1Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.

47.5.4.

-1-

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 03-40735

SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GERALD PHILLIP WOOTEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

______________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

(4:98-CR-64-6)

______________________________________________________________________________

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1

In this appeal, we review the district court’s denial of Defendant - Appellant, Gerald

Phillip Wooten’s, motion pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i) and (ii) to disclose grand

jury testimony. 

We review the denial of a motion for disclosure of grand jury testimony for an abuse of

 Case: 03-40735 Document: 0051222840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2004
-2-

discretion. United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir. 1993). The burden is on

Wooten to show that a particularized need exists for the grand jury testimony that outweighs the

policy of secrecy in regards to these materials. Id. The request must amount to more than a

request for authorization to engage in a fishing expedition. In re Grand Jury 95-1, 118 F.3d

1433, 1437 (5th Cir. 1997).

Wooten has demonstrated no particularized need for the grand jury transcripts. See

Miramontez, 995 F.2d at 59. He has also failed to show that he sought to challenge his

indictment and conviction at the earliest possible time. See United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d

268, 271 n.1 (5th Cir. 1979). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Wooten’s motion for disclosure of the grand jury transcripts. The district court’s judgment is

affirmed.

 Case: 03-40735 Document: 0051222840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2004