Opinion ID: 3010393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Secrecy of the Grand Jury

Text: The longstanding rules preserving grand jury secrecy are well established. See Douglas Oil, 441 U.S. 211; In re Grand Jury Matter (Catania), 682 F.2d 61, 63 (3d Cir. 1982). As the Supreme Court explained in Douglas Oil, [s]ince the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public, and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. 441 U.S. at 218 n.9. The secrecy of grand jury proceedings is a necessary incident to the proper functioning of the grand jury system. The Court has: noted several distinct interests served by safeguarding the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings. First, if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify would be aware of that testimony. Moreover, witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly, as they would be open to retribution as well as inducements. There also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual jurors to vote against indictment. Finally, by preserving the secrecy of the proceedings, we assure that persons who are accused but _________________________________________________________________ 10. The government attached a sealed affidavit to this effect in the papers it filed in the district court. 14 exonerated by the grand jury will not be held up to public ridicule. Id. at 218-19. Moreover, these interests in grand jury secrecy, although reduced, are not eliminated merely because the grand jury has ended its activities. Id. at 222.11 Thus, Douglas Oil implicitly makes clear that grand jury proceedings are not subject to a First Amendment right of access under the test of experience and logic. Historically, such proceedings have been closed to the public. Moreover, public access to grand jury proceedings would hinder, rather than further, the efficient functioning of the proceedings. Not only are grand jury proceedings not subject to any First Amendment right of access, but third parties can gain access to grand jury matters only under limited circumstances. Even after the grand jury has concluded its proceedings, a private party petitioning for access to grand jury materials must show that the need for [access] outweighs the public interest in secrecy, and . . . the burden of demonstrating this balance rests upon the private party seeking disclosure. Id. at 223. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) is intended to preserve the tradition of grand jury secrecy, creating a general rule of confidentiality for all matters occurring before the grand jury. Rule 6(e) applies to anything which may reveal what occurred before the grand jury. Catania, 682 F.2d at 63. The core of this rule is an obligation on all persons who are present at grand jury proceedings not to disclose any matters disclosed at such proceedings.12 Any knowing _________________________________________________________________ 11. In this regard, we note that it is not clear from the record whether the grand jury proceedings that are potentially implicated are ongoing. Because even completed grand jury proceedings and records are presumptively secret, determining whether the grand jury here has completed its investigation is not necessary to the questions before us. 12. Rule 6(d) sets out who may be present at grand jury proceedings: Attorneys for the government, the witness under examination, interpreters when needed and, for the purpose of taking the evidence, a stenographer or operator of a recording device may be present while the grand jury is in session, but no person other than the jurors may be present while the grand jury is deliberating or voting. 15 violation of that obligation may be punished as contempt of court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2). Rule 6(e) provides only narrow exceptions to the general rule of grand jury secrecy. For example, under Rule 6(e)(3)(A), grand jury secrets may be disclosed without a court order to certain government personnel for purposes limited to the federal criminal law enforcement. If such a disclosure is made, [a]n attorney for the government shall promptly provide the district court, before which was impaneled the grand jury whose material has been so disclosed, with the names of the persons to whom such disclosure was made, and shall certify that the attorney has advised such persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule. Id. 6(e)(3)(B). Most important for purposes of this case, any third parties seeking access to grand jury materials must file a petition in the district court where the grand jury convened. Id. 6(e)(3)(D). Under Douglas Oil, as we noted above, such parties have the burden of showing that their need for access outweighs the public interest in the secrecy of the grand jury materials. To preserve the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, the district court must seal certain hearings and records, although not grand jury proceedings themselves, when access to those hearings and records would jeopardize grand jury secrecy. Under Rule 6(e)(5), [s]ubject to any right to an open hearing in contempt proceedings, the court shall order a hearing on matters affecting a grand jury proceeding to be closed to the extent necessary to prevent disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury (emphasis added).13 Similarly, under Rule 6(e)(6), [r]ecords, orders and subpoenas relating to grand jury proceedings shall be kept under seal to the extent and for such time as _________________________________________________________________ 13. To the extent that contempt proceedings may be held in open court, the right to public access is a right held by the putative contemnor, not by the public. The contemnor must request open proceedings. Moreover, there is no requirement that the entire proceeding, including the questions that the contemnor refused to answer, be made public. All that must be accessible to the public, upon the contemnor's request, is the final stage of contempt proceedings. Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 618 (1960). 16 is necessary to prevent disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury (emphasis added). It is clear to us that the briefs and the hearings here are not themselves matters occurring before the grand jury. They may, nonetheless, be subject to Rule 6(e)(5) and 6(e)(6) governing the closure of hearings affecting and papers relating to grand jury proceedings. As the Second Circuit has recently explained, [t]he plain language of the Rule shows that Congress intended for its confidentiality provisions to cover matters beyond those actually occurring before the grand jury. In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Doe No. 4 v. Doe No. 1), 103 F.3d 234, 237 (2d Cir. 1996). Rather than according secrecy only to the grand jury proceedings themselves, the rules provide a presumption of secrecy to all proceedings that affect grand jury proceedings. Concomitantly, not only are grand jury materials themselves to be kept secret, but so are all materials that relate to grand jury proceedings. The newspapers urge a narrow reading of those provisions, recognizing that, if the briefs and hearing are subject to Rules 6(e)(5) and 6(e)(6), there is clearly no First Amendment right of access to them. Not only would there be no presumptive right of access to them, but if the newspapers wanted access to the briefs and the hearing, they would have the burden of showing that their need for access outweighed the public interest in grand jury secrecy, a burden the newspapers would be unlikely to carry. The newspapers contend that proceedings regarding whether the government improperly disclosed grand jury material do not affect or relate to a grand jury proceeding, in the common sense of those terms. According to the newspapers, any grand jury proceedings can continue uninterrupted and unaffected by the proceedings before the district court. We disagree. Grand jury proceedings are interrupted and affected if matters occurring before the grand jury are disclosed. That is because, as the Douglas Oil Court explained, the disclosure of what has occurred or is occurring before the grand jury undermines the proper functioning of grand jury proceedings. Thus, Rules 6(e)(5) and Rule 6(e)(6) require a district court to seal any hearing or records that would 17 publicly disclose matters occurring before the grand jury. See id. at 238 ([A] proceeding is related to or affects a grand jury investigation if it would reveal matters actually or potentially occurring before the grand jury.); 1 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 106, at 250 (1982) (The rule of secrecy applies . . . to anything that might tend to reveal what happened in the grand jury room.). In other words, since it is indisputable that a court must seal Rule 6(e) material, then a court may also seal proceedings or papers if grand jury material would be disclosed during the proceedings. The Advisory Committee notes to Rule 6 clearly support this conclusion. That commentary states that Rule 6(e)(5) make[s] it clear that certain hearings which would reveal matters which have previously occurred before a grand jury or are likely to occur before a grand jury with respect to a pending or ongoing investigation must be conducted in camera in whole or in part in order to prevent public disclosure of such secret information. Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6, 1983 Amendment. The Notes then go on to provide several examples of such a hearing. For instance, when a third party petitions a court for access to particular grand jury materials under subdivision (e)(3)(D), a court might be justified in sealing any related hearings for it will at least sometimes be necessary to consider and assess some of the `matters occurring before the grand jury' in order to decide the disclosure issue. Id. In other words, a court should close a hearing to decide whether disclosure is warranted if that hearing would necessarily disclose grand jury matters.14