Court Opinion

ID: 9466907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:32:06.267761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:02.150195
License: Public Domain

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the judgment dismissing this appeal. I would reach the merits, and affirm.
George Neagle is charged by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with murder and other serious offenses. In that prosecution the Commonwealth is bound, by virtue of the sixth amendment, to afford Nea-gle compulsory process for the production of evidence relevant to his defense. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). The Commonwealth’s principal witness in the prosecution is expected to be Leonard R. Milano, Jr., who is the subject of an ongoing federal grand jury investigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, being conducted by the United States Attorney in that district. Neagle requested the state court to issue an order compelling production of materials that may be exculpatory, including those materials relating to Milano, in the possession of the United States Attorney as a result of the grand jury investigation. Obviously, since the United States Attorney is located in the territory of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he could have been served with the compulsory process of the Pennsylvania courts. Had Judge Wright elected to proceed in that manner, the United States Attorney, looking at Fed.R. Crim.P. 6(e), would have seen that disclosure by him of matters occurring before a *1110federal grand jury could be made “when so directed by the court preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” His further inquiry would have disclosed that the judicial proceedings for which disclosure may be made on court order include judicial proceedings in state courts. E. g., Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894 (7th Cir. 1973); Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1958); United States v. Goldman, 439 F.Supp. 337 (S.D.N.Y. 1977); United States v. Salanitro, 437 F.Supp. 240 (D.Neb.1977). At that point the United States Attorney would have been faced with the question which the district court considered, and which the majority avoids; namely, what court shall make the determination of particularized need for disclosure of the federal grand jury materials in the state court proceeding. He might well have concluded that Rule 6(e) authorizes a state court judge to make that determination, since by virtue of the supremacy clause of the Constitution that judge would be obliged to apply the same federal law standards of disclosure as would a district court judge. No case construing Rule 6(e) definitively precludes that result, although in the cases establishing that the judicial proceeding exception to federal grand jury secrecy includes state judicial proceedings, the disclosure decision was made by a federal court. See, e. g., Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 490 F.2d 894; Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118; United States v. Goldman, 439 F.Supp. 337; United States v. Salanitro, 437 F.Supp. 240. In the likely event that the United States Attorney was uncertain about where the disclosure decision should be made, he would have had the option of resisting the state court process, inviting an enforcement proceeding, and removing that proceeding to a federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (1976). That course would have tendered to the district court the very issue which in this case it decided; which tribunal should make the disclosure determination.
I have outlined the scenario which would have resulted from a decision by Judge Wright to issue state court process because I believe that the majority decision now makes it inevitable. By construing the district court order as if it had no impact on the state court judge, this court has deprived him of a definitive ruling on the question of who should make the disclosure ruling. At the same time he must recognize that because of the holding in Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019, he cannot simply ignore grand jury materials possibly relevant to the defense. Since he has indicated by this appeal his dissatisfaction with the method devised by the district court for screening those materials, and has been told by the majority that he is not bound by the district court order, the next step is plain. Neagle will renew his request for compulsory process and Judge Wright will issue it. The United States Attorney, however, this time will have no option to consider whether Rule 6(e) contemplates that a state court may make the disclosure determination. He is bound by the district court order even though the state court judge is not. Thus he will almost certainly file a removal petition, and the underlying question will reappear first in the district court, then here on appeal. The passage of time will have contributed nothing to its resolution. The inevitable delay of the state court murder trial will, however, have contributed to disharmonious relations between two court systems, both of which are bound by the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment.
The majority holds that Judge Wright lacks standing to appeal. I disagree. The general rule is that an appellant must be privy to the record and aggrieved by the order from which he appeals. 9 Moore’s Federal Practice 1203.06 (2d ed. 1980); 15 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3902 (1976). However, the privy to the record requirement is not absolute. Nonparties have been allowed to appeal orders denying intervention, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 921, 96 S.Ct. 2628, 49 L.Ed.2d 375 (1976), orders denying claims of privilege, *1111Overby v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 224 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1955), orders directed to them, Commercial Security Bank v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., 456 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1972), and orders which, though not directed to them, substantially affect their interests. Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979); Dietrich Corp. v. King Resources Co., 590 F.2d 422 (10th Cir. 1979).
Had Judge Wright been unconditionally ordered to perform, or not to perform, an act, he would clearly have possessed standing to appeal. Commercial Security Bank v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., 456 F.2d 1352. I do not understand the majority to suggest otherwise. Its holding that Judge Wright’s appeal fails to satisfy the case or controversy requirement depends entirely upon the form of order, which, as construed by the majority, is conditional. I strongly suspect that the majority’s construction of that order will be a surprise to the judge who drew it. But be that as it may, even construing the order as permitting Judge Wright an option to comply, in truth he has no option at all. He is bound by the holdings in Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019, and Brady v. Maryland, 374 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). He must take steps to obtain the grand jury materials either by complying with the order or by issuing his own process against the United States Attorney. The suggestion that he is so unaffected by the order that his objections cannot satisfy Article III case or controversy requirements is unsound. And if any prudential standing considerations are at work, they escape my attention. Prudence dictates that the issue presented by this appeal be resolved now, not in the next round of litigation.
A far more sensible approach to standing to appeal was taken by the court in Glen W. Turner Enterprises Litigation, 521 F.2d 775 (3d Cir. 1975). There the trial court restrained prosecution by class members of independent state and federal actions pending disposition of a federal class action. The Kentucky Attorney General appealed the restraining order. This court noted that the restraint against prosecution was not absolute, since “a party need only exclude himself from the class actions to be free of the restraint.” 521 F.2d at 778. We held, nevertheless, that “[sjince the Attor-, ney General cannot exclude Kentucky citizens from the federal class action, the January 15 order effectively prohibits him from executing upon his state court judgment” and, therefore, he could appeal. 521 F.2d at 779. Judge Wright’s future course of action is determined as effectively by the order appealed from here as was the future course of action of the Kentucky Attorney General in Glen W. Turner.
Recognizing that compulsory process for federal grand jury materials presented delicate issues of federal-state relations, and that a state enforcement proceeding would probably be removed, Judge Wright attempted to have those issues resolved promptly in a federal forum. The majority’s unwillingness to decide them is a grave disservice to a cooperative state court judge, and to harmonious federal-state relations.
On the merits, I would affirm the district court’s order. In essence it requires that the disclosure decision be made in a federal forum. I am not ready to hold that Rule 6(e) requires that ruling in every instance in which federal grand jury materials are sought for state court proceedings. But where disclosure has been ordered for such proceedings in the past, a federal court has made the Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) determination. It is a less convenient method for state court judges trying criminal cases than allowing them to make disclosure decisions as the trial progresses. However, requiring it here was not, in my view, an abuse of the district court’s discretion. Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. at 223, 99 S.Ct., at 1675; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 399, 79 S.Ct. 1237, 1240, 3 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1959). The defendant Neagle will get what Washington v. Texas and Brady v. Maryland require, countervailing Rule 6(e) policies will be given due consideration, and the impact on the state trial will not be overwhelming.