The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-07-14

nation but simply because the de fendants wanted assistance in pre- pairing their defences. No appeal 1 expected to be taken.
 The complete text of the decision Is as follows:
 MEMORANDUM ON NOTIONS T( INSPECT GRAND JURY MINUTES
 It should be noted that the pur- pose of these motions cannot be to obtain information or evidence upon which to base an attack on the validity of any indictment which has been found on the strength of that evidence. This action was instituted, not on an Indictment, but on an information and accordingly there is no in- dictment for the accused to attack. The attack on the information based an claimed irregularities in the grand jury proceedings has al- ready been made in the pleas in abatement and motions to quaSh. On the pleas in abatement, no evidence was needed because the various questions were raised by demurrer. On the motions to quash, none of the accused ex- pressed any desire to offer any evidence. Moreover, those pleas in abatement and motions to quash have already been passed upon. It is clear, therefore, that, at this stage of the proceedings, the min- utes of the grand jury proceedings are not desired by the accused to lay the basis for an attack on the information. On the contrary it is apparent that the only purpose which could be served in throwing the minutes of the grand jury pro = ceedings open to the accused is that is would enable them some what better to prepare for the trial of the case.
 Laws Uniform
 The law in other jurisdictions, where grand juries are used more commonly than here, seems to be uniform to the effect that is it discretionary with the court to al- low access to the grand jury min- utes where that is reasonably nec- essary to obtain evidence in sup port of a move to attack the in dictment returned by the grand jury on the ground that it was il- legally found, but that it is never proper where the only purpose is to assist the accused to prepare for the trial of the case itself.
 Wharton, Criminal Evidence 2nd Ed. Vol. 2, page 1855 says:
 Tt is also the general rule that an accused in a criminal case has no right to an inspection of the minutes of the grand jury return ing the indictment against him either before or during the trial, but this is matter resting in the discretion of the court, and, where some special reason exists such as to enable the accused to properly move to set aside the indictment he may be permitted to inspect the minutes of the proceedings"
 Wigmore, Evidence, 2nd Ed, Sec. 2363, Vol. 5, page 154, lists six cases in which the law of privilege and secrecy as to grand jury pro- Ceedings ceases to operate, to wit: (a) for the purpose of impeaching witnesses on trial by shoWig that they testified differently before the grand jury, (b) in prosecutions for perjury committed before the grand jury, Co to prove the mere fact that witness testified (and this because it is common practice under statutes to furnish the &C., cused with a list of the witnesses against him), (d) in an action in which the plaintiff is seeking re- dress for defamation or malicious prosecution, (e) where the accused pleads immunity under immunity statutes on the ground that he has testified before the grand jury, and (D where it is sought to im- peach a witness by evidence of ex- pressions of bias made by him be- fore the grand jury. Wigmore, al- though he is arguing for the re- laxing of the strict rule of secrecy as to grand jury proceedings does not claim that the law is that 1t should be relaxed simply for the purpose of assisting the accused to prepare for trial.
 No Supporting Case
 Of all of the cases cited on the briefs and many others which have been examined not a single case has been found which actual ly holds that the accused should be allowed to inspect the minutes of the grand jury for the purpose of preparing himself for trial.
 In New York, it is true that there is one case, Peo. Klaw, 53 Misc. Rep. 153; 104 N. Y. $. 482 which, purely by way of dictum, says that the minutes may be ex- posed to determine various facts bearing upon the validity of the indictment and "also to enable a defendant to go to trial more fully prepared" But no case has been found in New York in which in- spection of the minutes was &C., tually allowed for that purpose. The law of New York is estab- lished in Re Montgomery, 126 App. Div. 72.; 110 N. Y. s. 793. That case holds that an inspection of the grand jury minutes may be had in the discretion of the court to enable defendant to set aside the indictment on the ground that it was not properly found, but cannot be had for the purpose of assisting the defendant in his preparation for trial or Of putting the states testimony in the hands of the defendant. And the holding of that case is approved in the opinion by Cardozo Oh. J. in Peo. ex rel. Lemon Supreme Court, 245 N. Y. 24 156 N. E. 84.
 Held Improper
 Some of the cases in other juris- dictions, which hold definitely that it is improper to expose the