Opinion ID: 789588
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Grand Jury Process and Common-Law Privileges

Text: 2 Grand jury proceedings occupy an essential role in the federal criminal justice system. A grand jury serves the invaluable function of both determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and of protecting citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-87, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972). To this end, a grand jury's investigative powers are necessarily broad ... [and its] authority to subpoena witnesses is not only historic, but essential to its task. Id. at 688 (internal citations omitted). Thus, in the context of a grand jury subpoena, the longstanding principle that the public has a right to each person's evidence is particularly strong. Id. Absent a compelling reason, a court may not interfere with the grand jury process. In re Weiss, 596 F.2d 1185, 1186 (4th Cir.1979). 3 A court will intervene, however, when a recognized privilege provides a legitimate ground for refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena. In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C.Cir.1982). Recognized privileges are those protected by the Constitution, common law, or statute. Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 688, 92 S.Ct. 2646 (citing United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331, 70 S.Ct. 724, 94 L.Ed. 884 (1950)). At issue in this case are two such common-law privileges: attorney-client and work product. 4 Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between the client and the attorney. As the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law ... [i]ts purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). Because the attorney-client privilege exists for the benefit of the client, the client holds the privilege. 5 The work product privilege protects an attorney's work done in preparation for litigation. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Thurs. Special Grand Jury Session Sept. Term, 1991, 33 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir.1994). It is premised on the idea that [n]ot even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquires into the files and the mental impressions of an attorney. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). The privilege encompasses both fact work product and opinion work product. Fact work product, which consists of documents prepared by an attorney that do not contain the attorney's mental impressions, can be discovered upon a showing of both a substantial need and an inability to secure the substantial equivalent of the materials by alternate means without undue hardship. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d at 348; see also In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir.1981) (defining fact work product). Opinion work product, which does contain the fruit of an attorney's mental processes, is more scrupulously protected as it represents the actual thoughts and impressions of the attorney. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d at 348. Because the work product privilege protects not just the attorney-client relationship but the interests of attorneys to their own work product, Hickman, 329 U.S. at 511, 67 S.Ct. 385, the attorney, as well as the client, hold the privilege.