In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Special Grand Jury 89-2
813 F. Supp 1451, 1992 WL 437503 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court may not release a special grand jury report to the public if it fails to meet strict statutory and common law requirements for disclosure, such as being supported by a preponderance of the evidence and not being critical of an identified person. Documents like unsigned indictments and presentments, which lack legal force, are also subject to these same rules of secrecy and cannot be released.
Facts:
- In 1989, a special grand jury was empaneled to investigate potential federal environmental crimes at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, operated by Rockwell International Corporation.
- After a three-year investigation, the U.S. Attorney concluded there was sufficient evidence to charge Rockwell, but not enough evidence to support indictments against individual employees of Rockwell and the Department of Energy (DOE).
- On March 24, 1992, the special grand jury submitted to the court a final report of its findings, proposed indictments against Rockwell and several individuals, and documents designated as presentments.
- The U.S. Attorney declined to sign the proposed indictments against the individuals, rendering them legally invalid as formal charges.
- On March 26, 1992, Rockwell entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, pleading guilty to ten criminal charges related to environmental law violations.
- In late 1992, an unofficial document purported to be a grand jury report, which had never been formally submitted to the court, was leaked and disseminated to the public.
Procedural Posture:
- Upon its discharge on March 24, 1992, Special Grand Jury 89-2 submitted its report, proposed indictments, and presentments to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
- On September 25, 1992, the District Court entered an order prohibiting the report from being filed as a public record because it failed to satisfy statutory requirements.
- On October 1, 1992, the Denver Publishing Company and KUSA-TV (petitioners) filed a Motion for Release of Grand Jury Documents in the U.S. District Court.
- Rockwell International Corporation, the United States, and John Does 1 and 2 filed responses in opposition to the motion.
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 have the authority to release a special grand jury report, unsigned indictments, and presentments to the public when the report identifies and criticizes individuals without a preponderance of evidence and otherwise fails to meet statutory and common law requirements for disclosure?
Opinions:
Majority - Finesilver, C.J.
No. A federal court does not have the authority to publicly release a special grand jury report and related documents that fail to meet strict legal standards. Grand jury proceedings are fundamentally secret to protect the innocent, encourage witness testimony, and preserve the integrity of the justice system. Under the controlling statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3333, a special grand jury report may only be released if it concerns organized crime, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and is not critical of an identified person; the report in question fails these requirements as it criticizes easily identifiable individuals and its conclusions are not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, under common law, the documents cannot be released because they function as an unanswerable public reprimand, violating the core principle that an individual should not be subjected to a quasi-official accusation without a forum to respond. Unsigned indictments have no legal validity, and presentments are obsolete in the federal system; both are treated as reports and are subject to the same strict secrecy rules.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the paramount principle of grand jury secrecy against claims of public interest and media access. It clarifies that a grand jury's power is not absolute and its reports are subject to strict judicial oversight before public release to protect the due process rights and reputations of unindicted individuals. The ruling establishes that unsigned indictments are legal nullities for disclosure purposes and that courts will not legitimize or reward unauthorized leaks of confidential grand jury materials. This sets a high bar for the release of such reports, prioritizing the integrity of the grand jury system over public disclosure.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Special Grand Jury 89-2