Opinion ID: 1859051
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dionisio Inapposite

Text: The majority's reliance on United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973), is misplaced. That case by its own terms turns on the unique role the federal grand jury has traditionally played as an investigative body of ordinary citizens, `acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge,' whose mission is to clear the innocent, no less than to bring to trial those who may be guilty. Id. at 15-16, 93 S.Ct. at 773 (citation omitted). Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the supervision of a judge, the longstanding principle that `the public .. . has a right to every man's evidence,' except for those persons protected by constitutional, common-law, or statutory privilege, is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings. Id. at 9, 93 S.Ct. at 769 (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 682, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2657, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (citations omitted). This is in sharp contrast to Florida procedure, wherein the chief law enforcement officer in the circuit, i.e., the state attorney, may issue a subpoena with no grand jury or judicial oversight whatsoever. [4] The results reached in Dionisio and other federal subpoena cases are thus inapposite here since the interests driving the state attorney and federal grand jury are not necessarily convergent.