Opinion ID: 199833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grand Jury Instructions (Santana)

Text: 11 Santana renews his pretrial argument that the indictment should be dismissed because he says the grand jury was inadequately instructed in violation of Fed. R.Crim.P. 6 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He requests that we review the grand jury minutes in order to answer several questions he raised in the district court about the grand jury instructions. 1 12 We review the district court's refusal to dismiss the indictment de novo because Santana's claim is a purely legal one. United States v. Balsam, 203 F.3d 72, 81 n. 8 (1st Cir.2000) (de novo review). We affirm the district court's denial of Santana's motion to dismiss the indictment for two reasons. First, under federal law the prosecutor is not obligated to provide legal instruction to the grand jury. Second, the alleged errors in the grand jury proceedings are harmless in light of the petit jury proceedings and verdict. 13 [N]either the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 362, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). Courts ... generally have found that the prosecutor satisfactorily explains the offense to be charged by simply reading the statute to the grand jury. 2 4 Criminal Procedure § 15.7(g), at 450 (LaFave et al., eds., 2d ed.1999). The prosecutor is under no obligation to give the grand jury legal instructions. United States v. Zangger, 848 F.2d 923, 925 (8th Cir.1988); accord United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323, 1347 (9th Cir.1981). Santana's motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied. 14 In addition, Santana was subsequently and properly convicted by a petit jury and so the alleged errors in the grand jury proceeding are harmless. United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 106 S.Ct. 938, 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (upholding convictions, despite violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(d)); United States v. Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d 319, 328 (1st Cir.1995). [T]he petit jury's verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt demonstrates a fortiori that there was probable cause to charge the defendants with the offenses for which they were convicted. Mechanik, 475 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. 938.