In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. In Re Jacqueline Schofield, Witness
486 F.2d 85 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Pursuant to the federal courts' supervisory power over grand jury proceedings, the government must make a preliminary showing by affidavit that items sought by a grand jury subpoena are relevant to a legitimate investigation within the grand jury's jurisdiction before a court will enforce the subpoena through a civil contempt order.
Facts:
- Jacqueline Schofield was served with a federal grand jury subpoena commanding her to appear and testify in a "Grand Jury Investigation."
- The subpoena did not provide any information about the nature or purpose of the investigation.
- When Schofield appeared, she was not asked to testify but was instead directed by the United States Attorney to provide handwriting exemplars, fingerprints, and allow her photograph to be taken.
- After consulting with her attorney, Schofield formally appeared before the grand jury and refused to comply with these requests.
- The government, in seeking to enforce the subpoena, did not provide any information to Schofield or the court regarding the purpose or necessity of the requested items.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Attorney filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to compel Jacqueline Schofield to provide handwriting exemplars, fingerprints, and a photograph.
- The district court, without making any findings, issued an order compelling Schofield to comply.
- After Schofield failed to comply with the order, the government moved to have her held in civil contempt.
- The district court adjudged Schofield in civil contempt and ordered her confined until she complied with its order.
- Schofield appealed the contempt order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court's supervisory power over grand jury proceedings require the government, in a civil contempt proceeding, to make a preliminary showing by affidavit that subpoenaed non-testimonial evidence is relevant to a legitimate grand jury investigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibbons, Circuit Judge
Yes. Before a court will enforce a grand jury subpoena through a civil contempt order, the government must make a preliminary showing by affidavit that the requested items are relevant to a legitimate investigation. The Supreme Court's decisions in Dionisio and Mara only addressed Fourth Amendment challenges and did not limit a court's inherent supervisory power over its own process. Grand jury subpoenas are functionally analogous to administrative subpoenas, and courts do not act as a mere 'rubber stamp' in enforcing them. The civil contempt statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826, allows a witness to refuse compliance for 'just cause,' which necessitates a judicial inquiry into potential abuses of process, such as harassment or bad faith. Because the government possesses all the information regarding the investigation's purpose, it is reasonable to require it to make a minimal showing of relevance and proper purpose to justify enforcement.
Concurring - Seitz, Chief Judge
Yes. The government must make a minimal sworn showing of a proper purpose to enforce a grand jury subpoena. This requirement is an indispensable minimum protection against the possible arbitrary exercise of prosecutorial power and is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holdings in Dionisio and Mara. However, this government showing should not be the subject of an adversarial hearing by the witness. Allowing the witness to factually litigate the government's affidavit would lead to the kind of 'mini-hearings' that the Supreme Court has condemned as disruptive to the grand jury process.
Analysis:
This case, known as Schofield I, establishes a significant procedural safeguard for witnesses before federal grand juries within the Third Circuit, creating what is now known as the 'Schofield affidavit' requirement. The decision carves out a supervisory role for district courts that extends beyond the constitutional minimums set by the Supreme Court, creating a check on the prosecutor's power to issue subpoenas. By requiring the government to articulate a basis of relevance and proper purpose, the ruling aims to prevent abuse of the grand jury process for harassment or other improper ends. This holding created a circuit split, as most other federal circuits have not adopted this specific affidavit requirement.
