1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY MINUTES - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND GEBAUER,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-0122RSL

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR DISCLOSURE OF GRAND 

JURY MINUTES

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Raymond Gebauer’s motion for

disclosure of the grand jury minutes “for the sessions during which the grand jury considered

matters leading to the filing of the indictments herein.” (Dkt. #58). Defendant also requests

disclosure “of all legal instructions received by the Grand Jury from this Court, from

government attorneys, or from any other witness or individual,” and for an extension for

defendant to move to dismiss the indictments until 15 days after disclosure of the grand jury

minutes. 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)(E)(ii) provides that a court may authorize

disclosure of a grand jury matter “at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may

exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury.” 

Case 2:06-cr-00122-JLR Document 76 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY MINUTES - 2

Defendant alleges that the “government improperly placed before the Grand Jury a mass of

prejudicial material and has otherwise prejudiced the grand jury process.” Motion at p. 2. 

Because grand jury materials are presumed secret, a defendant must show a “particularized

need” to obtain disclosure of grand jury materials. See, e.g., Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S.

855, 870-71 (1966). To determine whether a defendant has shown a particularized need, a court

considers whether “(1) the desired material will avoid a possible injustice, (2) [whether] the need

for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy, and (3) that only the relevant parts

of the transcripts should be disclosed.” United States v. Plummer, 941 F.2d 799, 806 (9th Cir.

1991). A “heavy burden” is placed on a defendant seeking disclosure, and defendant’s

particularized showing must overcome the policy of maintaining grand jury secrecy. Martin v.

United States, 335 F.2d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 1964).

Defendant argues that disclosure is necessary because, he alleges, the grand jury was

misled. In support, he argues that the government disclosed its expert witnesses to him with no

curriculum vitae and no summary. However, the government states, and defendant does not

dispute, that it produced the resumes of its expert witnesses and summaries of their anticipated

testimony over a month before defendant filed this motion. Defendant also alleges that “the

changes in the various indictments returned in this case without citing or in mis-citing the legal

requirements” misled the grand jury. Although the superseding indictment and second

superseding indictment contained changes, neither the changes nor the content demonstrate that

the government misled the grand jury or misinformed it of the law.

Defendant also alleges that the government has produced thousands of pages of irrelevant

documents in discovery, and if the grand jury had instead been presented with “relevant

Case 2:06-cr-00122-JLR Document 76 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY MINUTES - 3

evidence and competent eyewitness testimony, there is a high probability that the Grand Jury

would not have indicted Defendant.” However, it is well established that “mere unsubstantiated,

speculative assertions of improprieties in the proceedings do not supply the particularized need

required to outweigh the policy of grand jury secrecy.” United States v. Ferrebouef, 632 F.2d

832, 835 (9th Cir. 1980) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Similarly, the government has

no duty to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. See, e.g., United States v. Williams,

504 U.S. 36, 55 (1992). Nor is defendant entitled to challenge the indictments “on the ground

that there was inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury.” Costello v. United

States, 350 U.S. 359, 402 (1956) (“If indictments were to be held open to challenge on the

ground that there was inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury, the resulting

delay would be great indeed. The result of such a rule would be that before trial on the merits a

defendant could always insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and

adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. This is not required by the Fifth Amendment”). 

Defendant also reargues issues he raised in his motion for a bill of particulars and motion for

judicial findings. The Court, however, has denied those motions, and the issues raised therein

do not justify disclosure of the grand jury minutes or legal instructions.

In sum, defendant has not shown a particularized need for the grand jury minutes or legal

instructions outweighing the policy of grand jury secrecy. Rather, he seeks to conduct a “fishing

expedition,” which does not justify disclosure. Ferrebouef, 632 F.2d at 835.

Finally, defendant requested an extension of time to move to dismiss the indictments until

15 days after disclosure of the grand jury minutes. Because the Court denies defendant’s request

for disclosure of the grand jury minutes, it also denies the related request for an extension.

Case 2:06-cr-00122-JLR Document 76 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY MINUTES - 4

Accordingly, defendant’s motion (Dkt. #58) is DENIED.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00122-JLR Document 76 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 4