Lexplug logoLexplug

In Re Sealed Case No. 99-3091

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
192 F.3d 995 (1999)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A prosecutor's disclosure of internal office deliberations or opinions does not violate the grand jury secrecy rule (Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)) unless it reveals specific information about the grand jury's own proceedings that is not already public knowledge. Information that is widely known has lost its character as secret and thus its disclosure does not violate the rule.


Facts:

  • On January 31, 1999, the New York Times published an article stating that a group of prosecutors within the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) believed President Clinton should be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice.
  • The article attributed the information to "associates" inside the OIC.
  • The article mentioned that the potential indictment would be for lying in a civil deposition and in grand jury testimony.
  • The OIC, through its counselor Charles G. Bakaly, III, initially submitted a declaration denying that its office was the source of the information.
  • An internal investigation conducted by the OIC later implicated Bakaly as the source of the information disclosed in the article.
  • Consequently, OIC withdrew Bakaly's declaration and acknowledged its office was the source of the information, but maintained that the disclosure did not violate grand jury secrecy rules.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Office of the President and President Clinton filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for an order to show cause why the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) should not be held in contempt.
  • The district court ordered OIC and one of its counselors to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt for violating Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).
  • Following an internal investigation by OIC, the district court sua sponte issued an order appointing the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute OIC for criminal contempt.
  • OIC filed an emergency motion in the district court to vacate the order, which the court did not rule on.
  • OIC then filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking summary reversal of the district court's orders.

Locked

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 prosecutor's disclosure to the media of internal office deliberations, including the opinion that the president should be indicted for conduct that was publicly known to be before a grand jury, constitute a violation of the grand jury secrecy rule, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A prosecutor's disclosure of internal office deliberations about a potential indictment does not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) if it does not reveal the secret inner workings of the grand jury. The court reasoned that Rule 6(e) is designed to protect the secrecy of the grand jury's own proceedings, not to broadly regulate all statements made by a prosecutor's office about its own investigation. The court distinguished between revealing what the grand jury is doing, which is prohibited, and revealing what prosecutors are thinking or debating internally, which is not prohibited. Furthermore, information that is already widely public, such as the fact that President Clinton had testified before the grand jury, loses its secret character under Rule 6(e), and therefore its mention in the article did not constitute an unlawful disclosure.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the scope of grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e), establishing a critical distinction between a prosecutor's internal deliberations and the actual proceedings of the grand jury itself. It narrows the application of the rule by holding that prosecutors' opinions and investigative strategies are not protected unless they directly reveal secret grand jury matters. This ruling provides prosecutors with more leeway in communicating with the media, while also establishing that information already in the public domain, even if related to a grand jury, is not protected by the rule's secrecy requirements. This creates a "public knowledge" exception that could be significant in high-profile cases.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query In Re Sealed Case No. 99-3091 (1999) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for In Re Sealed Case No. 99-3091