Court Opinion

ID: 9457229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:16:39.096837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:16.484828
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I agree with the majority opinion except upon one point, which I believe re*221quires reversal and remand. I think the failure of the Government to have recorded the testimony of the Government witness, IRS agent Sager, given before the grand jury, is in violation of Rule 6(d), Fed.R.Crim.P., if not the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, previous opinions of this and other Courts of Appeals notwithstanding. Rule 6(d) says a stenographer or operator of a recording device “may be present * * * ” But the rule also says that “the witness under examination * * * may be present.” I wonder whether the majority would construe that phrase of the rule in the same way it has construed mention of the stenographer’s presence. I would agree with Professor Wright that if discretionary and selective recording is the rule, “it ought to be changed * * The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance to the defense of access to the transcript of the grand jury proceedings. A defendant cannot have that advantage if the proceedings go unrecorded.” 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 103 (1969 ed.).
The majority, following the language of United States v. Ayers, 426 F.2d 524, 529 (2d Cir. 1970), says that while recording grand jury testimony is the “better procedure,” it is not a requirement.1 They rely upon the footnote in Ayers, 426 F.2d at 529 n. 1, stating that “Failure to record testimony given before a Grand Jury seems still a matter about which a defendant has no right to complain.” For the statement in the footnote the Ayers court relied upon Nipp v. United States, 422 F.2d 509, 512 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied sub nom. Bishop v. United States, 397 U.S. 1008, 90 S.Ct. 1235, 25 L.Ed.2d 420 (1970), two pr e-Dennis cases m the Second Circuit and a Columbia Law Review Note, Discovery by a Criminal Defendant of His Own Grand-Jury Testimony, 68 Colum.L.Rev. 311, 315 and n. 28 (1968). I would add to the authority of the Ayers footnote the similar rule of the Ninth Circuit, recently expressed in Reyes v. United States, 417 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1969), although the Ninth Circuit in reaching a result like that in the Ayers footnote also relied upon pre-Dennis cases, especially our own United States v. Cianchetti, 315 F.2d 584, 591 (2d Cir. 1963). The Tenth Circuit rule derives from Welch v. United States, 371 F.2d 287, 294 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 957, 87 S.Ct. 395, 17 L.Ed.2d 303 (1966), which didn’t deal with the arguments made herein.
The Ninth Circuit in Loux v. United States, 389 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1968), suggests that where testimony has not been recorded, the “storehouse” of relevant information referred to in Dennis, like the snakes in Ireland, does not exist. 389 F.2d at 916. This may or may not be good Celtic history, but it is very weak logic. It might better be suggested that the prosecutor not only has exclusive access to the storehouse, but by failure to record the testimony he has thrown away the keys.
So long as we have a grand jury system, it would seem to me the recordation of witnesses’ testimony is essential. It is essential in a case of this nature, where the testimony of the principal witness for the prosecution is involved, for at least two reasons. First, since Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966), a defendant has been entitled to examine the grand jury testimony of witness*222es against him. On this point, the Court was unanimous, holding that there was “no justification” for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ “relying upon [the] ‘assumption’ ” that “no inconsistencies would have come to light.” 384 U.S. at 874, 86 S.Ct. at 1851. The Court’s decision was based on the general proposition that “[i]n our adversary system for determining guilt or innocence, it is rarely justifiable for the prosecution to have exclusive access to a storehouse of relevant fact.” 384 U.S. at 873, 86 S.Ct. at 1851. In the case at bar the prosecution did have exclusive access to the grand jury testimony of the witness Sager, by virtue of being present, and the defense had none — to determine whether there were any inconsistencies with, say, his subsequent testimony as to damaging admissions by the defendant and by attorney Richard Thaler. The Government claims, and it is supported by the majority here, that there is no problem since defendants were given the benefit of Sager’s subsequent statements including these admissions as Jencks Act materials. But assuming this to be true, it does not cure the basic infirmity that the defense could not know whether the witness testified inconsistently before the grand jury. Particularly where, as here, we are dealing with the customary federal agent who types up a report from original notes and then destroys the notes and testifies from his report, it is essential that a defendant be given every opportunity to determine whether, at least, the agent has been consistent with his own prior testimony.
But there is a second, perhaps more cogent reason for requiring grand jury testimony to be recorded, entirely independent of the first. The recording of testimony is in a very real sense a circumstantial guaranty of trustworthiness.2 Without the restraint of being subject to prosecution for perjury, a restraint which is wholly meaningless or nonexistent if the testimony is unrecorded, a witness may make baseless accusations, accusations founded on hearsay or false accusations, all resulting in the indictment of a fellow citizen for a crime. In today’s case it is the commercial crime of tax evasion; in tomorrow’s it may be incitement to riot, conspiracy to murder, or something equally serious. It is no answer to say that the grand jury hands down only indictments, and not convictions.3 For today, as to serious crimes, with crowded courts and crowded jails, a defendant who may subsequently be acquitted or have the charges against him dismissed, may spend a year or two or three in custody awaiting trial. See United States ex rel. Frizer v. McMann, 437 F.2d 1312 (2d Cir. 1971) (en banc). If he is fortunate enough to be a so-called “political” defendant, he may arouse sympathy and be able to advance his cause in jail or raise a large amount *223of bail. But if he is a typical criminal in a typical American jail, he hasn’t any money, he may get only an automatic defense, he may be punished before he’s even tried.
The failure to record a witness’s testimony goes to the very integrity of the grand jury process. It also has consequential effects which are many and substantial.
Obviously, the practice of not requiring recordation deprives the trial court of any opportunity to exercise its discretion under Rule 6(e), Fed.R.Crim. P., to weigh a defendant’s request for production of grand jury testimony against the traditional secrecy surrounding the grand jury. Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966). The practice, certainly no less than the practice of relying solely on hearsay testimony before the grand jury, “prevents the defendant from utilizing grand jury testimony in cross-examining witnesses who will testify at the trial.” United States v. Arcuri, 282 F.Supp. 347, 349 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 405 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 913, 89 S.Ct. 1760, 23 L.Ed.2d 227 (1969).4 In fact, the practice could deny the defendant the opportunity to complain that the indictment was based solely on hearsay if the witness who testifies is as circumspect as the agent in Arcuri, supra, at 405 F.2d 692. It is of note that a defendant may have the grand jury testimony of a witness who testifies at trial as of right in this circuit, if that testimony were recorded. United States v. Youngblood, 379 F.2d 365 (2d Cir. 1967). The majority says that is all very well, but there is no right to have the testimony recorded. Without implying anything about the Government’s good faith in this case, I am at a loss to see how the imaginary future defendant created by the majority will ever be able to prove bad faith on the part of the Government if he has no transcript of a witness’s testimony from which to construct an argument that the testimony should, in good faith, have been recorded.
The benefits of having grand jury testimony recorded do not all inure to the defense. See, e. g., United States v. Desisto, 329 F.2d 929, 934 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 979, 84 S.Ct. 1885, 12 L.Ed.2d 747 (1964) (conviction sustained in part on basis of witness’s prior sworn testimony before grand jury).
I cannot see how in some cases “the ends of justice” will override the desirability of secrecy in grand jury proceedings and compel disclosure, United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., 310 U.S. 150, 234, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940), while in other cases production of the testimony will be precluded by the Government attorney’s decision that the case is not “serious.”5 I should not have thought that the “ends of justice” could be made to turn on whether the United States Attorney chooses to the testimony recorded.

. This court’s continued admonition that recordation of grand jury proceedings is “the better procedure,” United States v. Cianchetti, 315 F.2d 584, 591 (2d Cir. 1963), without requiring that the “better procedure” be followed, United States v. Ayers, 426 F.2d 524, 529 (2d Cir. 1970), begins to cast the court in the “undesirable” posture of “helpless piety” mentioned by Judge Frank in United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 155 F.2d 631, 661 (2d Cir. 1946) (dissenting opinion). While the United States Attorney stated at oral argument that it is now the policy in the Northern District of New York to record all grand jury proceedings, his statement is no assurance that the next United States Attorney will not revert to the old policy.

. We have come a long way since the time when Jefferies, O. J., could imprecate a witness to tell the truth by warning that * * * as thou will answer it to the Great God, the judge of all the earth, that thou do not dare to waver one tittle from the truth, upon any account or pretence whatsoever; * * * for that God of Heaven may justly strike thee into eternal flames and make thee drop into the bottomless lake of fire and brimstone, if thou offer to deviate the least from the truth and nothing but the truth.
Lady Lisle’s Trial, 11 How.St.Tr. 325 (1685), quoted in VI Wigmore, Evidence § 1816 (3d ed.). Wigmore’s point is that without a belief in Divine punishment for dissembling on the stand, an oath is meaningless. As we no longer disqualify a witness who does not believe in the supernatural, we would do well to look realistically at the much more imminent threat of recrimination which accompanies an awareness that one’s testimony is being recorded verbatim.

. “Historically, this body has been regarded as a primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution; it serves the invaluable function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused * * * to determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal ill will.” Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390, 82 S.Ct. 1364, 8 L.Ed. 2d 569 (1962). See 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 101 (1969 ed.).

. If, as Wigmore states, cross-examination “is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth . . .,” V Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (3d ed.), then the recordation of testimony might be considered fuel to help make that engine run. Indeed, in the English magistrate’s and coroner’s inquests, recordation has been required at least since the 1550’s, 1 & 2 Phil. & M., c. 13, § 4 (1554); 2 & 3 Phil. & M., c. 10 (1555), quoted in IV Wigmore, Evidence § 1326, n. 1 (3d ed.), with the incidental result that recorded testimony taken at a coroner’s inquest was, until 1848, when Sir John Jervis’ Act, 11 & 12 Viet. c. 42 (1848) required cross-examination, admissible despite the hearsay rule.

. The appellants, who received sentences of 6 months’ imprisonment, 5 years’ probation, $10,000 fine, and 5 years’ probation, $10,000 fine, respectively, would take issue with the Government’s assertion that this is not a “major criminal ease.”