Opinion ID: 2059026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Release of Grand Jury Transcript.

Text: Defendant Mahaney contends that the Grand Jury transcript should have been released to him for use in preparing his case and later for use as an impeachment device at trial. Rule 6(e) M.R.Crim.P. provides, and this Court has recently affirmed, that requests for inspection of a Grand Jury transcript shall only be granted upon a showing of particularized need. State v. Doody, Me., 432 A.2d 399 (1981); State v. Cugliata, Me., 372 A.2d 1019 (1977). Defendants based their claim of particularized need on the possibility that either the five year gap between the homicide and the indictment or the drug habits and criminal records of presumed Grand Jury witnesses had given rise to inconsistencies between the Grand Jury testimony and that given at trial. In Doody we held that the general statement there may well be inconsistencies in the testimony of other witnesses, made without specific reference to the alleged inconsistencies, cannot constitute particularized need. State v. Doody, 432 A.2d at 402. Since defendants merely alleged that there may be changes, some serious contradictions here, they failed to make a showing of particularized need [5] , therefore, under Doody and Cugliata, the hearing justice's refusal to release the transcript was proper. The defendant continued to request that the transcripts be released after the Grand Jury witnesses had been called for the State. We are cognizant of the argument that the policy reasons for Grand Jury secrecy [6] are not served by withholding the Grand Jury transcript after the witnesses have testified publicly. It is unnecessary for us to decide the issue in this case. The presiding justice reviewed the transcripts in camera to determine whether any possible basis existed for releasing the transcript to defense counsel. Our own reading of the Grand Jury transcript reveals no inconsistencies that would have provided a basis for impeachment at trial. Therefore, even if the trial justice should have tipped the balance in favor of the defendant and released the transcript after the Grand Jury witnesses had testified at trial, his failure to do so in this case would have been harmless error.