Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:90-cr-01002-MP

GLENN COX,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 216, Motion for Leave to Amend his Prior

Motion for Production of Grand Jury Transcripts filed by Glenn Cox. Previously, in the Order at

Doc. 214, the Court ordered the Defendant to provide legal authority supporting his request for

the Court to release grand jury transcripts. The motion at Doc. 216 (and the memorandum at

Doc. 215) represent Defendant's attempts to comply with the order at Doc. 214. Thus, the Court

grants the motion at Doc. 216 to the extent that it accepts the amendments to the motion and has

reviewed all of the arguments provided by Defendant.

Having done so, the Court concludes that the motion for production of grand jury

transcripts should be denied. In Doc. 215, Defendant argues that nothing in the record shows

that the government could have provided probable cause of an overt act to the grand jury, and

that "Defendant feels he should be entitled to know who linked him to a[n] overt act with Johnny

Archer on December 19, 1989 in the Northern District during grand jury proceedings." Doc.

215, p.2. The general rule is that grand jury proceedings are to be kept secret. See U.S. v.

Williams, 180 Fed.Appx. 108, 109 (11th Cir. 2006), citing United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 1:90-cr-01002-MP

1327, 1346 (11th Cir.2004). Limited exception to the general rule may apply when the grand

jury matter is sought “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”

Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i). 

A party seeking grand jury transcripts bears the burden of showing that (1) the material

sought is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding; (2) the need for

disclosure outweighs the need for continued secrecy; and (3) the request is structured to embrace

only necessary material. Id., citing Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S.

211, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1674, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979); United Kingdom v. United States, 238 F.3d

1312, 1320-21 (11th Cir.2001) (quoting the Douglas Oil Co. standard). “These same demanding

standards apply even after the grand jury has concluded its operations.” Aisenberg, 358 F.3d at

1348. The defendant seeking grand jury material must show a “particularized need;” generalized

allegations will not suffice. United States v. Burke, 856 F.2d 1492, 1496 (11th Cir.1988).

Cox's motion does not satisfy his burden on any of the criteria applicable to his request.

First, he cannot show that the materials sought were needed to avoid injustice in another judicial

proceeding. Here, Cox claims to need these materials to seek post-conviction relief (a second or

successive petition), but fails to show how the requested information supports the availability of

such relief. To file a second or successive habeas petition, authorization is required from the

Court of Appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), and such authorization may only be granted upon a

showing of (i) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable jury would

have convicted Defendant; or (ii) a new rule of constitutional law made retroactively applicable

on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Here, the Court has also ruled that Cox is procedurally barred from making this claim

because he failed to raise it on direct appeal. See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 153, pp.
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 1:90-cr-01002-MP

13-15, adopted by order at Doc. 155. Thus, Cox made no showing that the grand jury materials,

which contain no newly discovered evidence and implicate no new rule of constitutional law,

would somehow excuse this procedural bar. Thus, there is no injustice to avoid and no need for

the disclosure. The motion for disclosure is therefore denied. 

Additionally, in Doc. 217 and Doc. 218, the defendant moved the Court to seal a previous

order of the Court (Doc. 204) but acknowledged that the Order is currently sealed. Apparently a

search of TRULINCS and LEXIS brings up the Order despite the sealed status. The defendant is

thus asking the court to require entities not under the Court's jurisdiction to seal the order. This

the Court cannot do. Accordingly it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion for leave to amend, part of Doc. 216 is granted. 

The motion for disclosure of grand jury transcripts, Doc. 213 as amended by the other

part of Doc. 216, is denied.

The motions to seal, Docs. 217 and 218 are denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge