The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-07-14

UpSIlCU DO tLlC dSOhoCN VO oCoAoN AAAA in preparing for trial has never been decided by the Supreme Court of Errors. However, as will be pointed out in moment, the reason for denying the right to in- spect rests ultimately on the fun damental principle that proceed ings before a grand jury are to be kept secret. This principle is well established in the law of this state. State Fassett, 16 Conn. 457; State V Coffee 56 Conn.,, 399. In- deed State V Fassett goes so far as to say by way of dictum that the secrets of the grand jury room may not be violated even for the purpose of invalidating the indict- ment but only for the purposes of prosecutions for perjury and contradictins witnesses. State v Coffee, it is true. casts some doubt on the proposition that evidence as to what transpired in the grand jury proceedings may be re- ceived only in prosecutions for per- jury or to contradict witnesses and reserves the question as to wheth- CT there may not be some other situations in which the secrets of the grand jury proceedings may be divulged. It recognizes the prin- ciple, however, that these secrets should be divulged only when nec- essary in the interests of justice and to secure the rights of indivi- duals and that is just the principle upon which all of the cases in other jurisdictions denying the right to inspect grand jury min- utes in preparation for trial are decided. It is true that Daly Dim- ock 55 Conn, 579 holds that testi- mony taken by coroner must be thrown open to the inspection of an accused. That however has no bearing on the present question because so far from being secret, the proceedings before a coroner are public to the extent that the statute requires the filing of the coroner's minutes with the clerk of the superior court and it was that requirement. of the statute which formed the basis of the de- cision. Upon authority, therefore, it is inconceivable that the law on this subject of the right to inspect grand jury minutes is any differ ent in Connecticut from what it is in other jurisdictions.
 Assists Accused
 The reasoning by which the au- thorities reach the conclusion that although an inspection of the grand jury minutes may be or dered for the purpose of laying a foundation for an attack on the validity of the indictment, it should not be ordered to assist the accused in his preparation for trial is as follows: It is funda- mental that proceedings before a grand jury are to be kept secret unless the interests of justice or the rights of the parties make it clearly necessary to disclose them. It is not true as has sometimes been said loosely in some of the cases and by some of the text writers that the reason for the rule of secrecy ceases after the grand jury has returned an in- dictment and the accused has been arrested. One of the cogent reasons for maintaining that secrecy is, as it is put in Com. V. Mead, 12 Gray (Mass) 167; 71 Am. D. TAI, that perjury and subornation of perjury may be prevented by withholding the knowledge of facts testified to be- fore the grand jury, which, if known, it would be for the inter ests of the accused or their con- federates, to attempt to disprove by procuring false testimony" That reason for secrecy continues to op- crate until the trial is over.
 After all, the evidence taken by the grand jury makes up the states case. To expose that case to the accused and thereby put him in position where he could tamper with the states witnesses or, knowing all of the details to which they were going to testify, manufacture evidence to over come the states case, would not promote the ends of justice.
 So far as the argument of fair play is concerned, the accused of course is entitled to be fairly ap- prised of the charge upon which he is to be tried but fair play does not demand that he be given an exhibit of the testimony by which the state expects at the trial to sustain that charge There is no way in which the accused may be compelled to disclose to the state in advance of the trial the evil dence which he will produce on the trial It is hardly fair play to compel the state to expose its case in full while the accused keeps secret the evidence which he intends to spring as surprise on the trial.
 Preparation
 The reason for permitting an inspection of the minutes for the purpose of attacking the validity of the indictment but denying 1t for the purpose for preparation for trial is that in the former situation it is absolutely essential to do so for the protection of the rights of the accused, where as in the latter 1t is not. If the &C., cused is claiming that some irreg- ularity in the proceedings invali- dates the indictment the only way in which he can substantiate that claim is by proving what the pro- ceedings were. That can be done only by introducing in evidence the minutes of these proceedings. In such a situation the grand jury minutes are admissible as direct evidence. On the trial of the case the testim my of witnesses given before the grand jury is not ad- missible as direct evidence. If some of 1t becomes admissible to impeach the testimony of wit