Opinion ID: 516487
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Access to the Grand Jury Proceedings

Text: 7 Intervenors assert that as members of the press, they have a First Amendment right of access to the grand jury proceedings. Intervenors argue that these proceedings are criminal proceedings, and that therefore they have a right of access absent a compelling state interest to the contrary. See generally Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (press has First Amendment right to access transcript of preliminary hearing in criminal prosecution); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (plurality) (press has First Amendment right to access criminal trials). 8 Intervenors fail to appreciate the fundamental difference between criminal trials and grand jury proceedings. The press's right of access to criminal trials and the proceedings connected with such trials is based on at least two considerations. First, criminal prosecutions historically have been open to the public. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. at 573, 100 S.Ct. at 2825 (there is a presumption of openness [which] inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice). Second, an open criminal trial helps to assure the fairness of the proceedings. Press-Enterprise Co., 478 U.S. at 7, 106 S.Ct. at 2740 (one of the important means of assuring a fair trial is that the process be open to neutral observers). Public access thus has a positive role in the functioning of the criminal prosecution process. Id. at 8, 106 S.Ct. at 2740. 9 Neither of these elements is present in assessing access to grand jury proceedings. First, grand jury proceedings are historically and presumptively secret. See Phillips v. United States, 843 F.2d 438, 441 (11th Cir.1988) (Grand jury proceedings, both state and federal, have long been protected by the veil of secrecy. The secrecy of the grand jury is sacrosanct.). That secrecy has been codified in Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), which limits disclosure of grand jury proceedings and materials. Second, secrecy of grand jury proceedings is essential to maintaining the effectiveness of the grand jury. 2 See Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1672, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979) (We consistently have recognized that the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.). This is in direct contrast to the advantages public access provides to criminal proceedings. Press-Enterprise Co., 478 U.S. at 8-9, 106 S.Ct. at 2741 (Although many governmental processes operate best under public scrutiny, it takes little imagination to recognize that there are some kinds of government operations that would be totally frustrated if conducted openly. A classic example is that 'the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.' ) (quoting Douglas Oil Co., 441 U.S. at 218, 99 S.Ct. at 1672.) 10 This is not a case of a prior restraint of protected First Amendment activity. See, e.g., Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) (voiding gag order on all participants in a criminal trial as prior restraint). It is the disclosure of grand jury materials that invokes the judicial process. In order to justify lifting the secrecy that normally surrounds the grand jury proceedings, courts must find a particularized need for the disclosure that outweighs the benefits of maintaining the secrecy. United States v. Liuzzo, 739 F.2d 541, 544 (11th Cir.1984). Even when the person requesting such disclosure has shown a particularized need for the materials, access is limited and covers only those materials actually needed. Id. at 545. 11 It is clear that the district court had authority to issue this closure order under Rule 6(e)(5). See Advisory Committee Notes to the 1983 Amendment (Two other kinds of hearings at which information about a particular grand jury investigation might need to be discussed are those at which the question is whether to grant a grand jury witness immunity or whether to order a grand jury witness to comply fully with the terms of a subpoena directed to him.). The intervenors had no right of access to these proceedings. This order was necessary to maintain the secrecy of the grand jury investigation. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court in issuing this order. 12