Opinion ID: 706016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Full Disclosure of the Grand Jury Transcripts

Text: 55 We review a trial court's decision whether to release the grand jury transcripts for abuse of discretion. United States v. Plummer, 941 F.2d 799, 806 (9th Cir.1991). 56 Joseph Perez contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for full disclosure of the grand jury transcripts to aid him in preparing a motion to dismiss the indictment. 9 Joseph Perez alleged two grounds for disclosure of the grand jury transcripts. First, he claimed that the Assistant United States Attorney, rather than the witnesses, testified before the grand jury. Second, Joseph Perez claimed that DEA Agent Anderson's testimony recited beliefs rather than facts. The trial court conducted an in camera review of the grand jury transcripts and found both grounds for disclosure meritless. 57 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(C)(ii) provides that grand jury transcripts may be disclosed upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury. A party seeking disclosure of the grand jury transcripts must demonstrate a particularized need for the disclosure. Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 870, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 1849, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966); United States v. Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 857 (9th Cir.1986). The standards the trial court should apply in granting disclosure of the grand jury transcripts are (1) that the desired material will avoid a possible injustice, (2) that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy, and (3) that only the relevant parts of the transcripts should be disclosed. Plummer, 941 F.2d at 806 (citing Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1674, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979)). 58 In Walczak, the defendant sought discovery of the grand jury proceedings to aid him in a motion to dismiss the indictment. One of the reasons the defendant sought discovery was that the law enforcement officers' testimony before the grand jury improperly summarized the testimony of other agents. However, the defendant alleged no facts in support of his claim. We held that the defendant's claim failed to meet the particularized need standard because it was speculative. Walczak, 783 F.2d at 857. 59 Similarly, Joseph Perez does not provide any evidence to support his claim that the prosecutor directly presented evidence to the grand jury. Joseph Perez's claim that the prosecutor testified is speculative and fails. Joseph Perez's claim that Agent Anderson began his responses with I believe rather than simply stating the facts, even if true, would not have compelled dismissal of the indictment given the amount of direct evidence presented to the grand jury from other sources. 60 We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Joseph Perez's motion for disclosure of the grand jury transcripts.