Court Opinion

ID: 9476911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:08:59.42773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:35.034953
License: Public Domain

FAGG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I do not believe the district court had a clear basis for its decision to interfere with the grand jury process, I dissent.
A court’s supervisory power over grand jury proceedings is significantly limited by the separation of powers doctrine. See United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). This court correctly identifies the test for determining when supervisory power may be properly exercised: “given the constitutionally-based independence of each of the three actors — court, prosecutor and grand jury — * * * a court may not exercise its ‘supervisory power’ in a way which encroaches on the prerogatives of the other two unless there is a clear basis in fact and law for doing so.” Id. (footnote omitted); see United States v. (Under Seal), 714 F.2d 347, 350 (4th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 978, 104 S.Ct. 1019, 78 L.Ed.2d 354 (1983) (court must have compelling reason to interfere in grand jury process). Here, that test was not met.
The United States Attorney presented Larry Wood’s allegation of perjury to the grand jury. The district court found this presentation “accurate and fair in general.” Once the district court made this find*117ing, no clear basis existed for it to thrust itself into the grand jury process.
The court’s supervisory power over the grand jury does not permit it to detail precisely how the prosecutor should proceed. Further, when the prosecutor acts within the realm of fairness, it is not for the court to second-guess the prosecutor or to speculate about what the jurors may have perceived. Such speculations are even more out of place when, as here, the United States Attorney presented Larry Wood’s allegation of perjury to a seasoned grand jury — in fact, the same grand jury that indicted Wood. Thus, the grand jury was familiar with its role in the criminal justice system and with the facts underlying Wood’s indictment.
Because the district court found the United States Attorney’s presentation accurate and fair, the court had no clear basis in fact or law to intrude on the grand jury proceedings. This court commits error in affirming that intrusion.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.