Opinion ID: 490124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 29 A grand jury exercises broad investigative powers and generally has both the right and the duty to procure every man's evidence. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 9-10, 93 S.Ct. 764, 769-70, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973). This power is limited only by constitutional, common law or statutory privilege, or by the exercise of the district court's supervisory authority to quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c); see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 668, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2650, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972). While appellate courts will normally defer to the district court's exercise of its supervisory authority, see In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Schofield II), 507 F.2d 963, 967 (3d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1015, 95 S.Ct. 2424, 44 L.Ed.2d 685 (1975); In re Grand Jury Matters (Young), 751 F.2d 13, 16 & n. 3 (1st Cir.1984), [j]udges may not, in the guise of exercising supervisory power, create new privileges or enlarge or distort existing ones, Young, 751 F.2d at 18. The existence and scope of a privilege are questions of law which Congress has directed courts to consider in the light of reason and experience. Fed.R.Evid. 501. 30 Because the district court relied on a theory of a common law speech or debate privilege for state legislators, we must reverse its order if the district court's understanding of the privilege was in error. To analyze that question, we must first discuss the contours of the speech or debate privilege for members of Congress, for the Legislators' contend that the same or similar interests motivating that privilege justify a comparable, albeit qualified, privilege for state legislators. We then analyze the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 100 S.Ct. 1185, 63 L.Ed.2d 454 (1980), and the district court's reasons for distinguishing it. Finally, we apply the lessons of Gillock to decide whether we should recognize the qualified privilege claimed in this case. 31