IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) NO. 2:00-CR-171

) 

JASON BEST, )

)

Defendant/Petitioner. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Production

of Grand Jury Transcripts and Make Up, filed by pro se Petitioner,

Jason Best, on March 12, 2007. For the reasons set forth below,

the motion is DENIED.

In his motion, Best asks for the racial make up of the grand

jurors, the cities the grand jurors were from, the job description

of the grand jurors, and evidence pertaining to 532 Hovey Street

statements and transcripts from officers and prosecutors regarding

the indictment Counts 2 and 3. (Def.’s Reply to Prosecutor’s

Resp., p. 3.) To the extent Best requests grand jury transcripts

of witnesses who testified at trial, the Government has already

provided those transcripts to Best pursuant to the Court’s

discovery order, the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and Rule 26.2 of

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:00-cr-00171-RL-APR document 590 filed 04/04/07 page 1 of 3
Regarding Best’s request for transcripts of other witnesses

who appeared before the grand jury, and the racial makeup, jobs,

and cities where the grand jurors were from, he has not satisfied

the rigorous standard to obtain such material that is ordinarily

kept secret. Our judicial system has recognized that the proper

functioning of grand jury proceedings depends upon their absolute

secrecy. See Douglas Oil Co. Of California v. Petrol Stops

Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 (1979). Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure Rule 6(e) codifies the rule that grand jury proceedings

should be kept secret. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). “[P]arties

seeking disclosure of grand jury transcripts must show that the

material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in

another judicial proceeding, that the need for disclosure is

greater than the need for continued secrecy, and that their request

is structured to cover only material so needed.” Matter of Grand

Jury Proceedings, Special Sept., 1986, 942 F.2d 1195, 1198 (7th

Cir. 1991) (citing Douglas Oil Co., 441 U.S. at 222). Grand jury

secrecy may not be broken except where the party seeking disclosure

can show a “compelling necessity” or a “particularized need.” Id.

Our circuit has held that “[i]n determining whether disclosure of

grand jury matters is appropriate in any given case, a court must

exercise substantial discretion, weighing the need for secrecy

against the need for disclosure of specified documents and

testimony occurring before the grand jury.” Matter of Grand Jury

Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1088 (7th Cir.

USDC IN/ND case 2:00-cr-00171-RL-APR document 590 filed 04/04/07 page 2 of 3
3

1982) (citing Douglas Oil Co., 441 U.S. at 223-24).

Here, Best merely argues that “there is no way a Grand Jury

should have indicted Mr. Best on Counts 2 and 3, without some kind

of prosecutor misconduct or a biased Grand Jury . . . .” (Def.’s

Reply to Prosecutor’s Resp., p. 2.) Best has failed to demonstrate

a particularized need for the grand jury testimony or the detailed

information about the grand jurors. See, e.g., United States v.

Edelson, 581 F.2d 1290, 1291 (7th Cir. 1979) (finding a defendant

seeking the production of grand jury transcripts must do more than

make general unsubstantiated or speculative allegations of

impropriety to prevail under Rule 6(e)(3)(c)(ii) (the former

rule)). Rather, Best seems to be fishing for anything helpful to

his cause. “The secrecy of a grand jury proceeding is not to be

pierced by such a slender reed: a mere possibility of benefit does

not satisfy the required showing of a particularized need.” Matter

of Jury Proceedings, Special Sept., 1986, 942 F.2d at 1199. 

For the aforementioned reasons, the Motion for Production of

Grand Jury Transcripts and Make Up, filed by pro se Petitioner,

Jason Best, on March 12, 2007, is DENIED.

DATED: April 4, 2007 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

USDC IN/ND case 2:00-cr-00171-RL-APR document 590 filed 04/04/07 page 3 of 3