Opinion ID: 567086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grand Jury Term

Text: 3 Becerra argues that his indictment, which was returned in the twenty-fourth month of the grand jury's term, should have been dismissed because the maximum term of a grand jury was eighteen months under General Order No. 6 of the United States Court for the Northern District of California. However, Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(g) authorized the extension given to the grand jury by the district court. 4 We give district courts broad discretion to interpret, apply, and determine the requirements of their own local rules and general orders. United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1414 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 2168 (1990). Even when the district courts choose not to follow the literal requirements of their local rules, this court has upheld their actions absent a violation of statute or constitutional due process. See, e.g., United States v. DeLuca, 692 F.2d 1277, 1281 (9th Cir.1982) (transfer to different judge upheld despite failure to satisfy requirements of local rule); United States v. Torbert, 496 F.2d 154, 157 (9th Cir.) (assignment to judge upheld although random procedure outlined in general order not followed), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 857 (1974). 5 General Order No. 6 was passed before Rule 6(g) allowed for extensions and, consistent with the Federal Rules at the time it was passed, did not authorize extensions. However, the order, by its own terms, anticipated future changes in the Federal Rules and expressed the intent to honor those changes: [T]he following amended plan is hereby adopted by this court, subject to ... such rules and regulations as may be adopted from time to time by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it bypassed the literal requirements of its local rule and authorized an extension of the grand jury's term beyond eighteen months as allowed by Rule 6(g). 1