UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-071-01-SM

 06-cr-071-02-SM

Elaine A. Brown and

Edward Lewis Brown

O R D E R

Defendants move for production of grand jury information to

provide the information from which they hope to challenge

compliance with grand jury selection procedures and selection “at

random from a fair cross section of the Community.” 28 U.S.C. §

1861. 

The exclusive procedure to challenge a jury as not selected

in conformity with Chapter 121 is that set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

1867. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e). The statute provides “an

unqualified right to inspect jury lists. Test v. United States,

420 U.S. 28, 30 (1975); U.S. v. Royal, 100 F.3d 1019, 1025 (1st

Cir. 1996). Specifically, the statute permits inspection and

copying at reasonable times of “(t)he contents of records or

papers used by the jury commission or clerk in connection with

the jury selection process . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f). 

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 67 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 5
2

Although there is an unqualified right to inspect the master

jury lists, courts have denied disclosure of names and addresses

of grand jurors to protect and maintain the confidentiality and

privacy rights of seated grand jurors. See United States v.

McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1122-23 (6th Cir. 1984). A litigant may

not “expand the (Jury Selection and Service Act) beyond its

boundaries.” United States v. Davenport, 824 F.2d 1511, 1515

(7th Cir. 1987). 

The objection contains references to certain documents the

government is willing to produce but where, as here, the

Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) has neither investigated

whether they exist nor, if they do exist, what they contain, the

response is, at best, uniformed and not helpful. 

Defendants’ requests, document no. 46, paragraph 4a. to k.

are considered in order: 

“4.a. The names, social security numbers and

physical residential addresses for each of

the individuals selected to serve as grand

jurors.” 

Production is denied unless and until defendants “can make a

particularized showing as to why the names . . . of the grand

jury that indicted . . . (them are) necessary to challenge the

jury selection process . . . .” United States v. Swan, 2003 WL

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 67 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 5
3

21799915, 2003 DNH 137. Defendants have failed to do so. The

social security numbers and residential addresses are also denied

as protected by statute and/or privacy rights. 

b. Copies of the master list showing the

grand juror selection criteria evidencing

that the grand jurors were selected at random

from a fair cross section of the community. 

It is not clear what it is that defendants are requesting -

the master list of approximately 26,000 names or the court’s

“Plan for the Random Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors”? The

Clerk is ordered to provide defendants with a copy of the plan

and to permit defendants to review a copy of the master list at

the Clerk’s office redacted of all information except the names. 

c. A copy of the investigation and

verification evidencing that each juror is a

United States citizen. 

d. A copy of the investigation and

verification that each juror is a New

Hampshire citizen. 

e. A copy of the investigation and

verification that each juror is qualified to

be one of the seated grand jurors. 

The Clerk is to provide a copy of the Grand Juror’s

Qualification Questionnaires with the names, month and day, but

not year of birth, address, employer, employer’s address,

telephone numbers, signature and social security numbers

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 67 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 5
4

redacted. These documents respond to “c” through “e”. 

f. The names, social security numbers and

physical residential addresses for each of

the individuals eliminated from serving as a

grand juror. 

Denied, see “a” above. 

g. The names, social security numbers and

physical residential addresses for each of

the individuals who selected the individuals

serving as a grand juror. 

Denied as wholly unrelated to the asserted issue. 

h. The precise geographical location

referenced for the crime allegedly committed

in case number 01:06-cr-00071-SM UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA v. Elaine Brown and Ed

Brown and used for grand juror selection. 

Moot. Read paragraph “1" of the indictment. 

i. Copies of all records that evidence the

grand jurors were given any consideration,

money, benefits, or privileges whatsoever by

the plaintiff during their deliberations. 

The government, by and through the Judicial Branch, paid

each Grand Juror his/her daily statutory fee of $40.00, mileage

and approved expenses. The records are not relevant and the

request is denied. 

j. Copies of all records for each of the

grand jurors that show they were not licensed

or controlled by the plaintiff United States

of America in any manner whatsoever. 

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 67 Filed 10/19/06 Page 4 of 5
5

Denied as non-sensical and intended only to harass. 

k. Copies of all records for each of the

grand jurors that show they were not under

any liability or required to pay income or

any other tax or penalty to the IRS or the

plaintiff United States of America. 

Denied as the tax returns of grand jurors are not relevant

or otherwise discoverable. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 19, 2006

cc: William E. Morse, Esq.

 Jean B. Weld, Esq.

 Edward Lewis Brown, pro se

 Elaine A. Brown, pro se

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 67 Filed 10/19/06 Page 5 of 5