Opinion ID: 202749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grand Jury Sufficiency

Text: 77 Capozzi also argues that the district court erred in failing to order the release of the grand jury transcripts. Prior to trial, Capozzi moved to dismiss Count 8 (Hobbs Act conspiracy) and Count 9 (Hobbs Act robbery of Michael Stevens). He argued that the government had failed to present sufficient evidence to the grand jury to establish the affects commerce element of the Hobbs Act charges. He did not then, and does not now, claim that the Hobbs Act charges were not properly pled in the indictment under Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). The district court denied Capozzi's motion, stating that The allegations are sufficient. The sufficiency of the evidence is for trial and the court should not inquire as to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury. 78 A court called upon to determine whether grand jury transcripts should be released has substantial discretion. United States v. McMahon, 938 F.2d 1501, 1504 (1st Cir.1991). It is well settled that `[a]n indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, . . . if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits.' United States v. Maceo, 873 F.2d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.1989) (quoting Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956)). As we stated in Maceo, A court should not inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence before the indicting grand jury, because the grand jury proceeding is a preliminary phase of the criminal justice process and all constitutional protections will be afforded during trial. Id. at 3. The government rightly argues that since Capozzi has never challenged the facial validity of Count 8, the district court correctly rejected his attempt to attack the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury. 7 79