The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-07-14

the grand jury. In neither sit- uation does the litigant nor the accused need to have the contra dictory statement in his possession before trial in order to protect his rights.
 In other words 1t is not reason- ably necessary for the protection of the rights of the accused nor is 1t in the interests of justice that an accused be given the min- utes of the grand jury before trial so that he may use, them to prepare for trial.
 ForcibIe Reasoning
 This reasoning found in the cases is so forcible and convinc- ing that 1t must be recognized in Connecticut as well as elsewhere as good law. It is, therefore, con- cluded that the law in Connecti- cut is that it is not proper to permit an accused person to in- spect the minutes of grand jury simply for the purpose of prepar- ing for trial; and that is par- bANuldll y VI uC III LilC CdoE SuCIl dS this wherein the prosecution does not rest directly upon an indict- ment found by the grand jury, but rather upon an information filed by the special states attor- ney upon his oath of office.
 It is contended by some of the accused that the situation is somewhat different in this case from what it is in the ordinary case because, they say, the grand jury, by filing report such as 1t did file with the signatures of all of the grand jurors appended thereto, published abroad all of secrets of it's proceedings and thereby itself removed therefrom the veil of secrecy. The answer to that contention is that, by each one signing the report, the grand jurors did no more than waive the right which each on had to have kept secret his vote in the grand jury room. And, so far a. the report itself is concerned, that did no more than make pulp lie the grand jury's conclusions of fact or rather, more accurate ly its conclusion that there was probable ground to believe that those facts existed. The report did not make public the evidence upon which the con- clusions of the grand jury were based. The making public of con- clusions is quite different thing from making public the evil dence upon which these con- clusions were based. The grand jury had no power or right to publish the evidence even though it had attempted to do so. It had no power to waive the law of se- crecy as to that evidence even though it had chosen to do so. It is the evidence taken before the grand jury that the accused desire to get at, not the grand jury's conclusions on that evidence, and there is no logic in claiming that the publication of the grand jury's conclusions in its report throw open the door to the evil dence taken before the grand jury.
 For the foregoing reasons all of the motions to inspect the grand jury minutes are denied. INGLIS, J.
 Defense counsel were elated with the decision of Judge Inglis which grants their clients the right to in- spect their Individual documents which were impounded by the jury and the special investigators. This also opens to them the records of the city of Waterbury which have been seized.
 In his decision, Judge Inglish points out which documents may be inspected by the individual accused. The decision follows:
 The question as to whether an accused should be allowed to in- spect documents which are in the custody of the states attorney (whether they have come there through grand jury proceedings or otherwise), although it may at first blush seem to be similar to the question as to his right to inspect grand jury minutes, is in reality fundamentally different. The record of the testimony be- fore the grand jury is not evil dence admissible on the trial of the accused to prove the truth of | facts testified to. Documents and records in the possession of the states attorney are, or at least may be, admissible as evidence on the trial. Accordingly, an &C., cused is not apt to be faced on the trial with the grand jury minutes, unless indeed 1t be a transcript of his own testimony before the grand jury and that he has full knowledge of, any way, but he is apt to be faced with documents, records and oth- CT physical evidence which the states attorney has in his pos- session. Very often documents and records need careful analysis in order to ascertain their true significance and there is no time to make that analysis during a | trial
 Permits Tampering
 Moreover, the fundamental req son for the rule denying the right to inspect grand jury minutes in preparation for trial is that it permits successful tampering with witnesses to the end that their testimony may be changed or colored That reason does not obtain with reference to written or printed evidence. Mere inspection of written or printed documents cannot re- suit in those documents being altered.
 Wigmore on evidence, 2nd Ed, Sec. 1859g, with reference to criminal procedure, says: "At common law no right of inspec- tion of documents before trial