Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/660/892/42026/
Timestamp: 2019-10-14 14:06:37
Document Index: 634859269

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1651', '§ 1541', '§ 1561', '§ 1561', '§ 3331', '§ 1615', '§ 4541', '§ 4548', '§ 3331', '§ 1615', '§ 1615', '§ 3333', '§ 3581', '§ 1361', '§ 1651', '§ 3771', '§ 1424', '§ 6']

United States of America, Petitioner v. Hon. Judge Almeric L. Christian, 660 F.2d 892 (3d Cir. 1981) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1981 › United States of America, Petitioner v. Hon. Judge Almeric L. Christian
United States of America, Petitioner v. Hon. Judge Almeric L. Christian, 660 F.2d 892 (3d Cir. 1981)
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 660 F.2d 892 (3d Cir. 1981) Argued April 29, 1981. Submitted June 11, 1981. Decided Sept. 30, 1981
Traditionally, federal appellate courts have issued the writ of mandamus where a lower court has made an error of "jurisdictional" dimension. Thus, the Supreme Court in Roche v. Evaporated Milk Association, 319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S. Ct. 938, 941, 87 L. Ed. 1185 (1943), identified mandamus as the means "to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so."1 Jurisdiction in this sense, however, has been read broadly.2 In a variety of contexts, appellate courts have resorted to mandamus where the district court, in a case properly before it, took some action it was not empowered to take3 or declined to take some action required of it.4
The present controversy, on superficial consideration, appears to present the paradigmatic case for mandamus review. The government contends that the district court, in declining to convene a grand jury, has failed to exercise an authority it was obliged to consider. The writ of mandamus, it is argued, provides the appropriate vehicle by which to remedy this failure to comply with applicable law. The unusual posture of the case, however, engenders special problems respecting the availability of mandamus relief. The principle of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803) that the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus historically has applied as well to lower federal courts. Although there appears to be no constitutional impediment, the First Judiciary Act confined the lower courts to issuing writs in aid of an otherwise existing jurisdiction. See McIntire v. Wood, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 504, 3 L. Ed. 420 (1813).5 The current authorization for mandamus, embodied in the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), preserves this restraint. It provides: "The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
Although the requested writ cannot be issued pursuant to our eventual jurisdiction over any identifiable case, we are not persuaded that such jurisdiction is invariably a prerequisite to a grant of mandamus relief. This Court has previously made use of the writ of mandamus notwithstanding the lack of a specific controversy over which we might later exercise jurisdiction. In United States v. Malmin, 272 F. 785 (3d Cir. 1921), the Governor of the Virgin Islands, without authority, had revoked the appointment of district judge Malmin and replaced him with another judge. Because questions of the validity of the judgments of the functioning judge would arise "in a way which would leave this court helpless to correct the fundamental trouble" and insofar as it was "essential to the appellate jurisdiction of this court that orderly proceedings in the district court ... be restored," the Court issued a writ ordering Malmin to reassume his duties as judge. Id. at 792. Indeed, cases in which, absent resort to mandamus, we would lose our ability to review the issue at all, present a wholly consistent example of mandamus as necessary for the exercise of our jurisdiction. As described by adherents of a carefully circumscribed mandamus power: "The focal question posed for a Court of Appeals by a petition for the issuance of a writ is whether the action of the District Court tends to frustrate or impede the ultimate exercise by the Court of Appeals of its appellate jurisdiction granted in some other provision of the law." LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 264, 77 S. Ct. 309, 317, 1 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1957) (Brennan, J., dissenting).8 Here, the refusal of the district court to convene a grand jury to investigate antitrust violations may arguably impede the prosecution of crimes over which we would otherwise have review.
Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241, 53 S. Ct. 129, 77 L. Ed. 283 (1932), similarly involved a situation where, at the time the Supreme Court considered the request for mandamus, there was no pending action over which the Court's jurisdiction might some day attach. In that case a United States Attorney, having secured a grand jury indictment against Joseph Wingert, petitioned the district court to issue a bench warrant for Wingert's arrest. When the court refused, the government, by-passing the court of appeals, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to issue the warrant. In granting the writ, the only jurisdictional question that detained the court was whether it could issue the writ notwithstanding the fact that direct review from district court decisions is vested in the courts of appeals, rather than the Supreme Court. The Court was not troubled by the absence of a pending lawsuit; indeed, the premise of the Court's discussion was that the court of appeals had authority to issue the writ, see id. at 249, 53 S. Ct. at 131, even though, as the district court's opinion indicates, see 55 F.2d 960, 963 (E.D. Pa. 1932), mandamus supplied the only basis for appellate review.
In Re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 267, 10 S. Ct. 762, 763, 34 L. Ed. 107 (1890). And more recently, the Second Circuit, in United States v. Fein, 504 F.2d 1170, 1172 (2d Cir. 1974), declared that grand juries are not "creatures of the court"; rather, the power of courts over grand juries is guided by rules and statutes.9 The Fein court sought to reconcile the language in Hill and Mills by noting that Chief Justice Marshall's opinion was written in 1809, "long before Congress had enacted any legislation regulating the powers or the tenure of grand juries." 504 F.2d at 1172. In Mills the issue was the power of an Article I territorial court, whereas in Hill the discussion centered on Article III courts.
Even if the Constitution does not apply,11 however, the Virgin Islands, as an unincorporated territory, 48 U.S.C. § 1541(a), is governed by a congressionally enacted Bill of Rights. 48 U.S.C. § 1561. We have previously held that such Bill of Rights "expresses the congressional intention to make the federal constitution applicable to the Virgin Islands to the fullest extent possible consistent with its status as a territory." In Re Brown, 439 F.2d 47, 51 (3d Cir. 1971) (en banc). The Virgin Islands Bill of Rights extends the Fifth Amendment to that territory, but also states "(t)hat all offenses shall continue to be prosecuted in the district court by information as heretobefore, except such as may be required by local law to be prosecuted by indictment by grand jury." 48 U.S.C. § 1561. Therefore neither constitutional nor organic statutory provisions can readily be construed to authorize, even by implication, the Virgin Islands District Court to convene a grand jury. See Government of Virgin Islands v. Rijos, 285 F. Supp. 126, 129 (D.V.I. 1968).
Nevertheless, since Chief Justice Marshall's time Congress has enacted several statutes explicitly providing for grand juries. In the present proceeding the government originally suggested two sources for the judicial power to summon a grand jury: Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. § 3331(a), which permits the creation of special grand juries "because of criminal activity in the district." Judge Christian, however, expressed the concern that the Virgin Islands District Court's authority in the criminal field is not congruent with that of other federal trial courts. In his view, the Virgin Islands tribunal does not share the power to summon a grand jury for indictment or investigative purposes. The government, after certifying to the district court in accordance with Section 3331 the need for a special grand jury, has sought mandamus only with respect to the district court's refusal to convene a jury pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(a).12 In view of this decision by the government, we turn to Rule 6(a).
If this Rule applied with full force in the Virgin Islands, it arguably would confer on the district court the authority to convene a grand jury to investigate crimes and indict where it found probable cause. See, e. g., United States v. Wallace & Tiernan, Inc., 349 F.2d 222, 226 (D.C. Cir. 1975). The investigatory powers of such a grand jury would be broad, since the federal system allows grand juries wide compass in their inquiries. See, e. g., United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S. Ct. 613, 617, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974). In the Virgin Islands, however, the authority provided by Rule 6(a) is circumscribed. Rule 54(a), which extends the application of the Rules to the Virgin Islands, carves out a significant exception: "all offenses shall continue to be prosecuted in ... the District Court of the Virgin Islands by information as heretofore except such as may be required by local law to be prosecuted by indictment by grand jury." This exception reflects and incorporates the substance of Section 25 of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands, 48 U.S.C. § 1615, which provides for prosecution by information rather than indictment unless otherwise required by local law. In light of Rule 54(a) and Section 25, Rule 6(a) cannot be read to authorize indicting grand juries in the Virgin Islands. The government suggests that Rule 6(a) can nevertheless provide authority for grand juries in the Virgin Islands that investigate but do not indict. Although 54(a) does not specifically forbid such grand juries, we find nothing in Rule 6(a) which can fairly be construed to authorize them.
Many states that prosecute by information still provide for investigatory grand juries, especially when large and intricate conspiracies or public corruption are at stake. For example, Pennsylvania, which previously authorized such juries under common law, see Note, Discretionary Power in the Judiciary to Organize a Special Investigating Grand Jury, 111 U. Pa. L. Rev. 954 (1963), has recently spelled out by legislation the powers it considers appropriate for its "investigating grand juries." 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. §§ 4541-4553 (Purdon 1981). That law empowers investigatory grand juries to subpoena witnesses and inquire into criminal offenses within the Commonwealth, initiate civil and criminal contempt proceedings, and issue presentments against any person within its jurisdiction who appears to have committed an offense against the Commonwealth. 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 4548. We presume that the government in this case seeks to have the District Court of the Virgin Islands authorize a similar type of institution in effect, a body with all the powers of a normal grand jury short of the power to indict. However, we are unable to find in the Federal Rules any language that would create such an entity in the way that Pennsylvania's common law and statutory provisions do.
The federal courts have long recognized the vital investigatory function which grand juries perform in the federal system. See, e. g., Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 701, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 2666, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972); Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S. Ct. 468, 471, 63 L. Ed. 979 (1919); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 65, 26 S. Ct. 370, 375, 50 L. Ed. 652 (1906). Indeed, some commentators have suggested that the grand jury's role as investigator is at least as important a contribution to our legal system as is its role as protector of individual rights. See Note, Investigating Grand Juries: A Comparison of Pennsylvania's Judicially and Legislatively Created Bodies, 18 Duq.L.Rev. 933, 933 (1980). But no authority advocates investigation for its own sake; the grand jury's inquisition must culminate in a disposition that furthers the prosecutorial process. Although it may ultimately fail to uncover any crime, a federal grand jury's investigation can still be justified by the possibility that it might have resulted in the issuance of criminal charges. As the Supreme Court explained in Blair, in describing the grand jury's powers:
250 U.S. at 282, 39 S. Ct. at 471; accord, Branzburg, supra, 408 U.S. at 688, 92 S. Ct. at 2660. See generally United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 185-96 (5th cir. 1975) (en banc) (Wisdom, J., concurring specially). By its own terms this recognition of investigatory powers cannot be read to extend to situations in which the grand jury lacks the power to make formal accusations. Rather, it ties the grand jury's broad investigative power to its ultimate decision whether to accuse a suspect of a crime.
For the Virgin Islands, the Federal Rules withhold any means by which grand juries might make formal accusations. As noted above, Rule 54(a) specifically denies authorization for indictment except as required by the local legislature. Further, it appears, the Rules do not empower grand juries in the Virgin Islands or elsewhere to make "presentments" reports of the grand jury to the court asking that a "charge be drawn to cover the facts should they constitute a crime," United States v. Smyth, 104 F. Supp. 283, 295 (N.D. Cal. 1952). As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has noted, "the practice of using presentments has disappeared in the federal system and is not provided for in F.R.Crim.P. Rules 6 and 7." United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 803 n.14 (5th Cir. 1975). This reading of the Rules is strengthened by the Notes of the Advisory Committee to Rule 7, which provide that:
If the government's proposed investigatory grand jury may neither indict nor present, it can serve no effective accusatorial purpose. The only remaining possible function would be the issuance of reports of some sort. In a variety of circumstances federal grand juries have been permitted to issue reports in addition to or even in place of indictments. The only explicit statutory authority for such reports is contained in the provisions for special grand juries under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3331-3334.15 Although federal grand juries not convened pursuant to that statute may also have some reporting powers, see In re Report and Recommendations of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives, 370 F. Supp. 1219, 1223-24 (D.D.C. 1974),16 the government has cited no case in which a federal grand jury was convened with the sole power and purpose of issuing such reports.17 Such an institution would be foreign to the federal judiciary as it now exists; even grand juries convened under Sections 3331-3334 retain the power to indict. See United States v. Ceccerelli, 350 F. Supp. 475 (W.D. Pa. 1972). Whatever the merits of creating a non-indicting grand jury, we do not find in the general language of Rule 6 any expression of an intent to authorize an unprecedented institution such as this.
The writ sought to have this court direct the District Court of the Virgin Islands to convene a grand jury for the limited purpose of investigation pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(a). In its petition, the United States, after maintaining that mandamus was a proper remedy for the district court's refusal to summon an investigatory grand jury, asserted that enforcement of federal laws in the Virgin Islands would be "crippled" if investigatory grand juries could not be convened there. The United States then claimed that Rule 54(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 48 U.S.C. § 1615 (1976)2 (Section 25 of the Virgin Islands Revised Organic Act) only preclude the initiation of prosecution by a grand jury. Rule 54(a) reads:
It is possible "to give effect to both" provisions by reading them as allowing the calling of investigative grand juries in the Virgin Islands under Rule 6(a), but requiring, pursuant to Rule 54(a) and 48 U.S.C. § 1615, prosecution by information. While grand juries traditionally perform both investigative and accusatory functions, Congress on occasion contemplates that grand juries might investigate crimes without issuing indictments. See, e. g., Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; 18 U.S.C. § 3333.4 Grand jury investigative authority is deeply ingrained in American jurisprudence, see United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343-44, 94 S. Ct. 613, 617-618, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 2660, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972); Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 280, 282, 39 S. Ct. 468, 470, 63 L. Ed. 979 (1919); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 64-65, 26 S. Ct. 370, 374-375, 50 L. Ed. 652 (1906), and it is implausible that Congress intended indirectly to abrogate this power in the Virgin Islands by insisting on prosecution by information.
I observe that in defining the role of an indicting grand jury convened under Rule 6, the courts have not limited themselves to the legislative history of the Fed. R. Crim. P., but have also looked to common law powers and the fifth amendment. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 342-44, 94 S. Ct. 613, 616-18, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974). Judge Adams has explored these sources of authority in section III of the majority opinion. I make no comment with respect to that discussion because of the context in which the issue of grand jury authority has been presented to us. The government, as Judge Adams and I both note, has restricted its entire argument to Rules 6 and 7. This being so, in our disposition of the government's petition, we need go no further than an analysis limited to just those Rules.
Certainly, the language of this rule does not recognize the existence of any sort of investigatory grand jury. The phrase' "as the public interest requires," which I have underlined in the text above can only have reference to, and thus modify, the times when a grand jury may be summoned--not the type of grand jury that can be summoned. Notes of Advisory Committee, 18 U.S.C.A. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6 at 268.
The Advisory Committee Note to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7 states that this Rule gives effect to the fifth amendment grand jury clause. 18 U.S.C.A. Fed. R. Crim. P. at 388. In addition, courts have looked to the fifth amendment as well as to English common law in delimiting the role of an indicting grand jury convened under Rule 6. See, e. g., United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 342-43, 94 S. Ct. 613, 616-18, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1979). If, as these authorities suggest, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure implement powers of the grand jury implied from the fifth amendment, then it cannot be that these same Rules constitute the sole source of a court's authority to convene a grand jury. The Rules only provide the procedures that govern grand juries, which have been convened by virtue of a pre-existing authority.
It cannot be disputed that the fifth amendment does not mandate the use of a purely investigatory grand jury. Nor can it be said that an investigatory grand jury arises from a necessary implication of the fifth amendment. The investigatory grand jury which the government urges may be convened under Rule 6, actually appears to be at odds with the requirements of the fifth amendment and the provisions implementing it. A federal grand jury acts as both a sword and a shield. See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 186 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (Wisdom, J., concurring specially), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935, 85 S. Ct. 1767, 14 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1965). It serves as a means to bring to trial those suspected of crimes and serves as a protection against malicious and harassing prosecution. See, e. g., United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S. Ct. 613, 618, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974). This latter protective function reflects the essential purpose of the fifth amendment in safeguarding the rights of an individual. The fifth amendment was designed for the benefit of the accused: to afford a safeguard against oppressive action of a prosecutor or a court. United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 170 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (opinion of Jones, J.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 935, 85 S. Ct. 1767, 14 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1965).
Moreover, as we have observed, since these Rules implement the fifth amendment, it follows that in those instances where these fifth amendment protections are inapplicable, the federal rules providing for grand juries are also inapplicable. This Court has consistently held that the fifth amendment's grand jury protection does not extend to prosecutions initiated in the Virgin Islands. See, e. g., Government of Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 633 F.2d 660, 667 (3d Cir.) (Maris J.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 960, 101 S. Ct. 374, 66 L. Ed. 2d 228 (1980); Rivera v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 375 F.2d 988 (3d Cir. 1967). It is thus not surprising that the Revision Notes to 5 V.I. § 3581 (1967) state that Rule 6 and Rule 7(a), (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply in the Virgin Islands.
It must be remembered that the writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that will "issue only in extraordinary circumstances ...", Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402-03, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 2123-2124, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1976). The party seeking mandamus has "the burden of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is 'clear and indisputable.' " Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96, 88 S. Ct. 269, 274, 19 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1967) quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S. Ct. 145, 148, 98 L. Ed. 106 (1953). See also Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 101 S. Ct. 188, 66 L. Ed. 2d 193 (1980); Kerr, supra, 426 U.S., at 403, 96 S. Ct. at 2124; United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582, 19 S. Ct. 286, 287, 43 L. Ed. 559 (1899); United States v. Cuthbertson, 651 F.2d 189 at 193. (3d Cir. 1981).
The burden is on the petitioner, here the United States, to show that it has a "clear and indisputable" right to the writ. In addition, our issuance of the writ is largely discretionary. Kerr, supra, 426 U.S., at 403, 96 S. Ct. at 2124. Thus, in my opinion, the party seeking a writ of mandamus must first provide an explicit and detailed explanation of the relief which it seeks. Mandamus relief should be unavailable if the party seeking it furnishes only a vague description of the duty which the district court should be compelled to exercise. Yet here the United States has not only failed to provide us with a clear explanation of the relief which it desires, but it has also failed to outline the precise powers and functions of the investigatory grand jury which it seeks, and the necessary procedural safeguards under which it should operate.5
Accord, Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 520-21, 76 S. Ct. 912, 917-18, 100 L. Ed. 1377 (1956); Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S. Ct. 145, 148, 98 L. Ed. 106 (1953)
See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 2123, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1976) ("we have not limited the use of mandamus by an unduly narrow and technical understanding of what constitutes a matter of 'jurisdiction' ")
See DeBeers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 65 S. Ct. 1130, 89 L. Ed. 1566 (1945) (enjoining, absent statutory authority, garnishment actions)
See Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241, 53 S. Ct. 129, 77 L. Ed. 283 (1932) (issuance of bench warrant)
Because the Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party," Chief Justice Marshall concluded that with respect to all other cases including the mandamus question raised in Marbury the Court's jurisdiction must be appellate. Yet the lower courts are not similarly bound by this constitutional language. Although McIntire v. Wood, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 504, 3 L. Ed. 420 (1813), paralleled Marbury, and construed the all writs section of the First Judiciary Act, with respect to the jurisdiction of circuit courts, as limited to writs issued in aid of a jurisdiction otherwise existing, this was based on statutory interpretation. See 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) at 504. In fact, the absence of constitutional grounds made possible the congressional abrogation of McIntire in the 1962 Mandamus & Venue Act. That statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, vests federal district courts with original jurisdiction over actions in the nature of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform his duty
See also Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, 111-117, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 1667-1670, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). In Chandler, Justice Harlan concluded that the Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ under § 1651 was properly invoked because the Judicial Council's orders, allocating Judge Chandler's cases to the other judges in his district, touched hundreds of cases over which the Supreme Court eventually had appellate or review jurisdiction, although the Court would never know which cases would have been assigned to Judge Chandler. The Council's action thus constituted a usurpation of power that could not adequately be remedied on final review
As the Supreme Court recently explained in Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 99 S. Ct. 2425, 61 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1979), two pragmatic justifications underlay the initial decision not to extend the Constitution to the unincorporated territories. First, imposition of certain of the constitutional provisions on people unaccustomed to common law traditions "may be to work injustice and provoke disturbance rather than to aid the orderly administration of justice." See Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 145-46, 24 S. Ct. 808, 811-12, 49 L. Ed. 128 (1904). Second, the application of the Constitution to the territories might create such severe practical difficulties as to prohibit the United States from exercising its constitutional power to occupy and acquire new lands. Id. at 148, 24 S. Ct. at 812; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 305-311, 21 S. Ct. 770, 794-796, 45 L. Ed. 1088 (concurring opinion). See Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S., at 469, 99 S. Ct. at 2428. Notably, permitting the Virgin Islands District Court to convene a grand jury to investigate crimes would neither disrupt local law enforcement nor compromise national interests. Further, as the Supreme Court noted in Torres, "Congress has generally left to this Court the question of what constitutional guarantees apply to Puerto Rico." Id. at 470, 99 S. Ct. at 2429, citing Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 590, 96 S. Ct. 2264, 2275, 49 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1976)
Cf. Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516, 526, 25 S. Ct. 514, 517, 49 L. Ed. 862 (1905) (acts of Congress purporting to extend the Constitution to incorporated territories are "declaratory merely of a result which existed independently by the inherent operation of the Constitution.")
In United States v. Fein, 504 F.2d 1170 (2d Cir. 1974), the Second Circuit indicated that Rule 6(a) is not merely a court-adopted rule channelling pre-existing grand jury authority; it actually creates and defines the court's power with respect to grand juries. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 Congress empowered the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of criminal procedure and reserved to itself a ninety day period for reviewing such rules before they took effect. The Supreme Court has declared that Congress can be deemed to have adopted these Rules, see Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 241-42, 93 S. Ct. 1577, 1582-83, 36 L. Ed. 2d 216 (1973); Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 85 S. Ct. 783, 13 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1964); and courts have specifically stated that the federal rules have the force and effect of statutes, see Bacon v. United States, 449 F.2d 933, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Wallace & Tiernan, Inc., 349 F.2d 222 (D.C. Cir. 1965)
The retention of prosecution by information in Section 25 did not appear in the versions of the Revised Organic Act that were reported out of committee in the Senate and House of Representatives. Both branches of Congress added the provisions by floor amendment at the request of Judge Albert Maris, a principal architect of the Act. See Conf.Rep.No.2105, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 21 (1954), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.Code 1954, p. 2585. The debates explain that the amendment was designed "to make sure that there will be no general jail delivery of any individuals in the Islands" whose prosecution had been instituted by information, a concern that arose "as a result of several cases which (had) gone to the appellate courts of the United States from the Territory of Guam." 100 Cong.Rec.8673 (1956) (remarks of Rep. Saylor). Earlier, the Ninth Circuit, observing that the Guam Organic Act made the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable in the District Court of Guam, had held that criminal defendants had a right, under Rule 7(a), to prosecution by indictment for any offense punishable by a prison term exceeding one year. See Hatchett v. Government of Guam, 212 F.2d 767, 772 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed 348 U.S. 801, 75 S. Ct. 17, 99 L. Ed. 633 (1954). Inasmuch as prosecutions in Guam were initiated by information, this holding created the danger that all prisoners on Guam, none of whom had been prosecuted by indictment, might be released. Congress responded by amending the Guam Organic Act to insure against a "general jail delivery," see S.Rep.No.2006, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1954), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1954, p. 3371, and to foreclose future application of federal procedural rules "which authorize or require ... the prosecution of offenses by indictment by a grand jury instead of by information." 48 U.S.C. § 1424(b)
The existence of the power to issue reports remains in dispute. Some courts have recognized the power in very limited circumstances. See, e. g., In re Application of Jordan, 439 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.W. Va. 1977) (such reports may be permissible, but they must be "of a general nature 'touching on conditions in the community;' they cannot be examples of the grand jury's accusing individuals of criminal misconduct through 'publicized inferences of guilt' "). Other courts and commentators have concluded that the grand juries have no such power at all. E. g., Application of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, 111 F. Supp. 858 (S.D.N.Y. 1953); 1 L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules § 6.116 (1966 & Supp.1981)
Some states provide for grand jury investigations which are intended to produce reports and not indictments or presentments, but those states typically recognize that their provisions go well beyond what is permitted for federal grand juries. See, e. g., People v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, 13 Cal. 3d 430, 436, 119 Cal. Rptr. 193, 196-97, 531 P.2d 761 (1975)
Section 3332(b) defines the scope of the power of the special grand jury to investigate "offenses against the criminal laws of the United States...." It reflects present law. See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S. Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652 (1906); Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 39 S. Ct. 468, 63 L. Ed. 979 (1919). Collateral inquiry which results in a report is contemplated under section 3332. However, this section makes it clear that investigations are to be conducted only into criminal offenses against the United States, and not for the sole purpose of report writing.
Investigatory grand juries are also permitted in 18 states in which the prosecutor may proceed by information. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 n. 25, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 2660 n. 25, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972)
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343-344, 94 S. Ct. 613, 617-618, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 2660, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972); Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 280, 282, 39 S. Ct. 468, 470, 63 L. Ed. 979 (1919); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 64-65, 26 S. Ct. 370, 374-375, 50 L. Ed. 652 (1906)