Opinion ID: 1984181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: errors in the grand jury proceedings.

Text: [25-30] Since none of the six challenges to the grand jury proceedings involve significant issues of law, discussion of them will be summary. (1) The defendant complains that the state improperly elicited testimony of the witness Jerry Beecher that because he had heard the defendant was a Chicago run outfit and linked with Mafia or whatever, he was afraid of it. The indictment was amply supported by other credible evidence. This bit of testimony was not prejudicial and is no basis to attack the indictment. (2) The defendant contends that the court's admonition to the grand jury witnesses to inform no one of the questions asked of you and the answers given by you, except your attorney, interfered with its ability to prepare a defense. Such an admonition was proper. In this state grand jury proceedings are secret in order to protect the jurors and the public. [38] Moreover, on appeal the defendant has not cited a single example of how it was hindered by this admonition in preparing its defense. (3) The trial judge entered the grand jury room, at the request of a witness who asked that a judge confirm the fact that he had no right to have his attorney present. The defendant argues that the presence of this stranger was error. But the judge's entry did not occur at a time when the jury [was] deliberating or voting on the indictment and is not grounds for quashing an indictment unless prejudice to the accused is shown. [39] No prejudice to this defendant was shown. (4) The defendant claims the prosecutor was constitutionally obliged to elicit testimony concerning an exculpatory colloquy between witness Pellitteri and the defendant's general manager Standridge that is on the tapes. The contents of the tapes were not admissible under Arnold, and the information they contained was made available to defendants at their request before trial. That is all that was here required. [40] (5) The defendant contends that the opening and closing statements of the prosecutor should have been recorded. Under the applicable statute, grand jury proceedings need not be recorded unless so ordered at the direction of the judge. [41] (6) The defendant finally challenges the state's failure to turn over to the defendant all transcripts of grand jury proceedings. In fact the trial court turned over to the defendant transcripts of all witnesses' testimony except transcripts of witnesses whose testimony involved public officials not involved in this case. Sec. 971.23(1), Stats., only requires the state to disclose to the defendant before trial the defendant's grand jury testimony. [42] The defendant's contention that the disclosure of grand jury proceedings was here insufficient is unsupported by state law.