In re Under Investigation Grand Jury No. 1
2004 La. LEXIS 1666, 2004 WL 1097691, 875 So.2d 33 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may not enjoin a pre-indictment grand jury investigation or otherwise intervene in its proceedings based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct unless the conduct involves a prosecution under a manifestly unconstitutional statute or constitutes a bad-faith, harassing investigation.
Facts:
- A grand jury was convened in Calcasieu Parish to investigate the quality of care provided to residents of the Greenhill Nursing Homes.
- Several present and former employees of the facility were called as witnesses or designated as targets of the investigation.
- During the proceedings, in the presence of the grand jurors, prosecuting attorneys advised two witnesses not to discuss their testimony with anyone, including their counsel.
- Prosecutors also admonished a third individual, a target of the investigation, in the presence of the grand jury and counsel, that their shared counsel had an actual conflict of interest.
Procedural Posture:
- Defense counsel, representing employees of Greenhill Nursing Homes, filed a motion in the 14th Judicial District Court (trial court) to enjoin the grand jury proceedings.
- The state filed a motion to summarily dismiss the defense's motion and a separate motion to disqualify defense counsel on conflict-of-interest grounds.
- To resolve the factual disputes in the competing motions, the trial court ordered the transcription of all testimony given before the grand jury.
- After the grand jury's term expired without any indictment, the trial court found the motion to enjoin moot but concluded the prosecutor's conduct was improper.
- The trial court assessed the entire $4,000 cost of the transcription against the state.
- The state sought review from the Third Circuit Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court), which denied the application for review.
- The state then filed an application for review with the Supreme Court of Louisiana (highest court).
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 trial court have the authority to intervene in a pre-indictment grand jury investigation by ordering testimony transcribed and assessing costs against the state based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that do not rise to the level of a bad-faith prosecution or involve a manifestly unconstitutional statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A trial court lacks the authority to intervene in a pre-indictment grand jury proceeding under these circumstances. The court reasoned that grand juries are independent investigative bodies that traditionally operate at 'arm's length' from the judiciary. Citing 'Board of Com’rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Connick', the court explained that judicial interference in a pre-indictment investigation is an extraordinary remedy justified only in two limited scenarios: 1) when a prosecutor attempts to use a 'manifestly unconstitutional' statute, or 2) when a prosecutor engages in a 'bad faith' investigation to harass an individual without a good faith belief that a crime was committed. Because the prosecutor's comments in this case, while potentially improper, did not meet this high threshold, the trial court erred by entertaining the motion to enjoin, piercing the veil of grand jury secrecy by ordering the transcription, and intervening in the grand jury's function. As the initial intervention was improper, the subsequent order casting the state with transcription costs was also reversed.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle of grand jury independence and secrecy from judicial oversight in Louisiana. It establishes that trial courts have very limited supervisory power over pre-indictment grand jury proceedings, effectively channeling challenges to prosecutorial conduct to post-indictment motions, such as a motion to quash. The ruling solidifies the high bar for enjoining a criminal investigation, requiring a showing of egregious constitutional violations rather than mere procedural improprieties by the prosecutor. This precedent limits the ability of defense counsel to litigate issues of prosecutorial misconduct during the investigative phase, preserving the grand jury's function as an independent body separate from the courts.
