THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY: EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF SECRECY (PART II) By Austin A. Andersen Special Agent Andersen and Legal Instructor FBI Academy Part I of this article traced the development of the Federal grand jury system in the United States and set forth the reasons for the requirement that grand jury proceedings be conducted in secrecy. Two general categories of exceptions to the obligation of secrecy specifically provided for by Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (F.R.C.P.) were noted: Disclosure without a court order, such as the disclosure to an attorney for the government and the subsequent disclosure to such government personnel necessary to assist the attorney in enforcing Federal criminal law; and disclosure requiring a court order, such as the disclosure of Federal grand jury material to reveal a violation of State law or for use in some other judicial proceeding. Part II will address difficulties commonly encountered by law enforcement officials attempting to comply with the requirements of Rule 6(e) as they come into contact with materials from grand jury investigations. Among the most problematic areas are dissemination to foreign authorities, determining exactly what type of evidence constitutes ``matters occurring before the grand jury,'' and defining the ``disclosure'' of such matters. DISCLOSURE TO FOREIGN AUTHORITIES Because of the transnational character of many drug and organized crime investigations conducted by modern police agencies, there is an increasing need for reciprocal cooperation and coordination by law enforcement authorities throughout the world. Government attorneys, however, have no discretionary authority to provide grand jury materials to other countries. In contrast to its specific provision allowing courts to reveal violations of State criminal laws, Rule 6(e) is silent with respect to an exception for the disclosure of a violation of foreign law to foreign authorities. Because the rule of secrecy generally prevents the disclosure of grand jury testimony to foreign officials, courts reject attempts by subpoenaed witnesses to invoke their fifth amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination as protection against prosecution in other countries. (43) This protection of the witness' testimony is especially important, inasmuch as the U.S. prosecutor has no ability to immunize the witness with respect to foreign criminal proceedings. (44) Despite the absence of express authority in Rule 6(e) to provide grand jury material to law enforcement officers of other countries, on occasion requests for disclosure by foreign agencies have been accommodated under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i), (45) pursuant to a court order upon a showing of a particularized need for the use of the material in a judicial proceeding. (46) In determining if such a need exists, the court will use a balancing test, weighing the policy of secrecy against the obligation to avoid an injustice in some other tribunal. (47) In addition, the court must also be satisfied that the forum for which the material is to be used qualifies as a ``judicial proceeding,'' as opposed to a mere investigation or audit. (48) Although disclosure of grand jury material under Rule 6(e) (3)(C)(i) is not easily or quickly facilitated, the U. S. Government nonetheless has a substantial interest in assisting foreign law enforcement authorities in the procurement of evidence relevant to their criminal investigations. For this reason, Congress has added a provision in the judicial section of the U. S. Code that authorizes Federal courts--rather than grand juries--to assist foreign authorities in gathering evidence. Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 enables the U. S. district court where a person resides to order that person to provide testimony, statements, documents, or other evidence for use in a foreign or international proceeding. Application for such orders are made by letters rogatory, or requests from the foreign tribunal, using protocol set forth in Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1781. An order to compel evidence pursuant to letters rogatory does not, however, include grand jury material subject to the rule of secrecy. (49) Other methods of exchanging information with foreign police should not be overlooked by U.S. officers investigating matters of international importance. Foreign countries may request information from the U. S. Government under treaties providing for mutual assistance in criminal investigations. Under the Mutual Assistance Treaty in Criminal Investigations with Switzerland, for instance, the U.S. Government is obligated to disclose, upon request, grand jury materials from an investigation after the case is no longer pending. (50) Evidence obtained without the assistance of a grand jury is often routinely exchanged with other law enforcement agencies when there is a common need for the information. Telephone records, for instance, when they are obtained by court order pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(c) (Electronic Communications Privacy Act), are not subject to the Rule 6(e) secrecy requirement. The terms of each mutual assistance treaty determines the type of information available for exchange and describes the form in which the request should be made. ISSUES CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF GRAND JURY SECRECY With its many exceptions, the doctrine of grand jury secrecy is obviously not an absolute. Unfortunately, neither the statutory language of Rule 6(e) nor its judicial interpretation has provided clear and unequivocal rules governing the accessibility of grand jury material to law enforcement officers under all circumstances. Disclosure at the Conclusion of the Grand Jury Proceedings Rule 6(e) is silent concerning the length of time that secrecy must be preserved. It is obvious that grand jury testimony, transcripts, and documents are not protected by the ban on disclosure to the extent they have been publicly revealed in an indictment, at trial, or in a guilty plea. Exactly how long matters not publicly disclosed must remain secret when the grand jury is no longer convened varies. The dismissal of the grand jury does not, by itself, lift the veil of secrecy, automatically providing an attorney for the government with broader discretion to disseminate grand jury material. When disclosure is made by court order pursuant to one of the rule's exceptions, however, the reasons for maintaining secrecy after the grand jury is dismissed lose some of their force and are more easily outweighed by competing interests when the court is faced with the question of whether the ends of justice require disclosure. (51) As previously noted, under the mutual assistance treaties with some nations, disclosure may be made after the grand jury's investigation is completed. Defining ``Matters Occurring before the Grand Jury'' Rule 6(e) prohibits the disclosure to any person of ``matters occurring before the grand jury,'' except when made in accordance with one of the rule's exceptions. These ``matters,'' however, are never further defined, except by case law which is, at times, inconsistent. As a result, there is considerable confusion concerning exactly what is encompassed by the term ``matters occurring before the grand jury.'' Courts generally agree that matters occurring before the grand jury include subpoenas, the testimony of witnesses, and specific questions of the grand jurors, as well as the transcripts of these statements, the targets upon which the grand jury's suspicion focuses, and specific details of what took place before the grand jury. (52) Conversely, government reports that contain statements provided by witnesses during investigations prior to or independent of a grand jury appearance are generally not considered matters occurring before the grand jury, unless the witness was coerced into making a statement in lieu of a subpoena or appearance. (53) A government document that summarizes or restates matters identified as occurring before the grand jury, however, is covered by the secrecy requirements of Rule 6(e). (54) Testimonial evidence and its transcription is generally considered to be grand jury material. It is arguable, however, that subpoenaed documents--especially third-party business records, such as telephone toll transactions--do not qualify as matters occurring before the grand jury. (55) Reasons given by courts for excluding such documents from the category of protected material include: * Such records are independently compiled by corporations for business purposes, and by themselves, do not reveal the direction, strategy, or any other matters before the grand jury. * They are generally sought for their intrinsic value to government investigators assisting the prosecutor and are seldom even seen by the grand jurors. * Disclosure of such information, often obtainable by means other than with a Federal grand jury subpoena, (56) does not contravene the underlying policy that justifies the secrecy rule. While holding that innocuous, pre-existing documents are not protected from disclosure merely because they are subpoenaed, one court noted that Rule 6(e) ``does not require...that a veil of secrecy be drawn over all matters in the world that happen to be investigated by a grand jury.'' (57) For these reasons, most, but not all, courts hold that such documents are not defined as ``matters occurring before a grand jury,'' unless there is a demonstrated nexus between disclosure and the revelation of some protected aspect of the grand jury's investigation, such as the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony, the strategy or direction of the investigation, or the deliberations and questions of jurors. (58) Notwithstanding the lack of judicial consensus as to whether a subpoenaed document itself falls within the definition of a matter occurring before a grand jury, one court conceptualized information per se that is removed from the grand jury context in the following manner: ``...when testimony or data is sought for its own sake--for its intrinsic value in the furtherance of a lawful investigation--rather than to learn what took place before the grand jury, it is not a valid defense to disclosure that the same information was revealed to a grand jury or that the same documents had been, or were presently being, examined by a grand jury.'' (59) The Supreme Court has indicated that information extracted from grand jury material does not constitute a matter occurring before a grand jury when disclosure of the raw data does not reveal that its source is the grand jury investigation. In United States v. John Doe, (60) the Court considered the issue of whether the same government attorney conducting a grand jury investigation into criminal antitrust matters may make continued use of the grand jury materials in the civil phase of the case without obtaining a court order. The Court held that there is no disclosure unless the material is actually revealed to some other person not authorized to receive it. A second issue concerned the defendant's contention that the government's use in a civil complaint of information obtained from grand jury material (including documents and transcripts of testimony) violated Rule 6(e) provisions concerning secrecy by disclosing matters that occurred before a grand jury. The Court noted that since the civil complaint ``does not quote from or refer to any grand jury transcripts or documents subpoenaed by the grand jury...or even refer to the existence of a grand jury,'' (61) it does not constitute a prohibited disclosure. (62) The John Doe decision implies that unsourced data removed from grand jury material may be revealed by government personnel without committing a disclosure. Extracted information, however, must be scrupulously handled in order to avoid either directly or indirectly divulging a grand jury nexus. It is important to note, however, that disclosure of such material among law enforcement officers may be restricted for other reasons. The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, (63) for instance, requires that financial records protected under the act and subpoenaed by a grand jury must be afforded the protections of Rule 6(e). In addition, the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (64) restricts disclosures of tax information obtained from the Internal Revenue Service, whether it has been presented to a grand jury or not. Defining ``Disclosure'' After it is determined that certain material must be categorized as divulging matters occurring before a grand jury, disclosure of that material may be lawfully accomplished only in accordance with the exceptions to secrecy specifically set forth in Rule 6(e). Exactly what constitutes ``disclosure,'' however, is not made clear, either by Rule 6(e) or judicial consensus. In considering the question of whether support personnel tasked with maintaining and storing grand jury material violate the secrecy rule, one court has recently indicated that mere access or possession--as opposed to use for investigative purposes--does not amount to disclosure as intended by Rule 6(e). (65) Because there is no consistent judicial guidance on this issue, government agencies are left with the uncertain task of devising appropriate security measures to protect such material. Subpoenas, transcripts of testimony, and other documents that identify matters occurring before a grand jury entrusted to government personnel assisting the prosecuting attorney should be secured in such a way that access is limited to those individuals listed on the disclosure letter to the district court. The materials can be used only for the purpose of assisting the attorney in a Federal criminal prosecution and not for internal or administrative purposes, such as agency inspections or personnel investigations. The material should be placed in a lockable room, filing cabinet, or other container accessible only to government personnel listed on the disclosure letter; it should not be stored or identified in automated data systems--or any other location--accessible to personnel not listed on the disclosure letter. In the event that grand jury material is to be used in court, as in the case of original documents, consideration must be given to preserving the chain of custody. In most instances, however, the subpoenaed material will consist of copies of documents, thereby eliminating the need for chain of custody procedures. At the conclusion of the grand jury investigation, original documents should be returned to the owner, unless the right to the material is expressly relinquished. CONCLUSION The grand jury is a time-honored legal institution that serves the interests of both the government and the accused by its ability to operate in secrecy. The exceptions to the rule of secrecy provide government personnel with a carefully limited ability to access and use the work product of the grand jury's investigation. Most of the time, law enforcement officers come in contact with Federal grand jury material when they assist a government attorney in a Federal criminal investigation. Although the decision by the attorney to reveal matters occurring before the grand jury is discretionary, all officers receiving the material must strictly adhere to the statutory requirements of disclosure made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii). The officers must be advised of their obligation of secrecy, which not only prevents them from discussing grand jury material with unauthorized individuals but also creates a duty to provide physical security for documents that reveal matters occurring before a grand jury. Also, the name of each employee using the material must be furnished to the court, and the material can be used only to assist the attorney in the Federal criminal investigation. Depending on case-by-case factual circumstances, the definition of ``matters occurring before a grand jury'' may not always be readily apparent; if material is not characterized as a matter occurring before a grand jury, then its disclosure is not controlled by Rule 6(e). Government personnel assisting an attorney with a grand jury investigation are likely to find themselves in possession of three types of materials: 1) Documents, such as subpoenas or transcripts of grand jury proceedings, that reveal matters occurring before the grand jury. These documents, clearly defined as a matter occurring before a grand jury, are entitled to the protection of secrecy and must be afforded security from disclosure absent a specific exception set forth in Rule 6(e). 2) Third-party business records subpoenaed by the grand jury. Because of the disagreement among courts as to whether these documents, by themselves, reveal matters occurring before the grand jury, it is not always obvious whether they should be categorized as grand jury material. Therefore, further disclosure must be carefully coordinated with the attorney supervising the grand jury investigation. 3) Information extracted from grand jury material. Raw data removed from context and carefully evaluated to make certain that its use for other purposes neither directly nor indirectly reveals its grand jury origins is not entitled to protection under Rule 6(e). In the absence of legislation designed to eliminate the uncertainty involved in defining grand jury material and its disclosure, these issues are likely to continue as a source of confusion for government personnel assisting grand juries. Therefore, as a general rule, the law enforcement officer in possession of any material obtained from a grand jury should seek appropriate legal guidance before attempting further dissemination of either documents or information contained therein. FOOTNOTES (43) See, e.g., In re Gilboe, 699 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1983); In re Baird, 668 F.2d 432 (8th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 982. (44) Id., Baird at 433-434. (45) Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i), F.R.C.P., provides, in part: ``Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made...when so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding....'' (46) See Note, ``Disclosure of Grand Jury Materials to Foreign Authorities under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e),'' 70 Virginia Law Review 1623, 1632-3 (1984). (47) Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (1979). (48) Id. (49) Supra note 46, at 1632-1633. (50) 27 U.S. Treaty at 2040; see Note, supra note 46, and Tigar and Doyle, ``International Exchange of Information in Criminal Cases,'' 1983 Michigan Year Book of International Legal Studies 61, 66-73. (51) See, e.g., United States v. Short, 671 F.2d, 178 (6th Cir. 1982), cert denied, 102 S.Ct. 932; Butterworth, supra note 26, in which the Court implies that a State's interest in witness secrecy is not as powerful after the grand jury is dismissed; Socony-Vacuum, supra note 31. (52) See, e.g., Douglas Oil Co., supra note 47; In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F.Supp. 1299, 1302-1303 (M.D. Fla. 1977). (53) In re Baggot, 662 F.2d 1232, 1237-1238 (7th Cir. 1981). (54) In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 613 F.2d 501, 505 (5th Cir. 1980). (55) See, e.g., Illinois v. Sarbaugh, 552 F.2d 768 (7th Cir. 1977); United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1960). (56) Telephone records, for instance, often obtained by court order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2703(c) [Electronic Communications Privacy Act], are not subject to the Rule 6(e) requirement of secrecy. Since investigators have an option as to how they gain access to such material, its subsequent use or disclosure reveals nothing about the grand jury investigation. (57) Securities Exchange v. Dresser Industries, 628 F.2d 1368, 1382-1383 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993. (58) See, e.g., Senate of Puerto Rico v. United States Department of Justice, 823 F.2d 574, 584 (D.C. Cir. 1987); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 851 F.2d 860, 866-867 (6th Cir. 1988); In re Grand Jury Investigation (New Jersey State Commission of Investigation), 630 F.2d 996, 1000 (3d Cir. 1980); In re Special February 1975 Grand Jury, 662 F.2d 1232, 1243 (7th Cir., 1981). Many of the majority view cases concern Freedom of Information /Privacy Act litigation in which, ironically, there is a release to the general public of subpoenaed material which, due to internal agency policy, is often not freely interchangeable among law enforcement officers. For minority view, see Fiumara v. Higgins, 572 F.Supp. 1093 (D.N.H. 1983) (district court considered telephone toll records subject to secrecy); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 851 F.2d 860 (6th Cir. 1988) (rebuttable presumption exists that confidential business records compelled by subpoena are matters occurring before a grand jury). Some courts find a distinction between disclosure for law enforcement purposes and public release, noting that documents remain the property of the persons from whom they have been subpoenaed. Therefore, where the owner of the documents does not consent to their release to the public, disclosure must be authorized by court order. See, e.g., Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. First Minnesota Construction Co., 405 F. Supp. 929 (D. Mass. 1975); Interstate Dress Carriers, supra note 55. (59) United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., supra note 55. (60) 481 U.S. 102, 110 (1987). (61) Id. at 110, quoting from In re Grand Jury Investigation, 774 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1985). (62) This interpretation is consistent with the concurring opinion of Justice Scalia in Butterworth v. Smith, supra note 26, in which he suggests that although a State is not allowed to prevent a former witness from telling what he told the grand jury, it may be able to keep him from revealing that he gave that information to the grand jury. (63) 12 U.S.C. 3420. (64) 26 U.S.C. 6103. (65) United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 785 F.2d 206, 213 (8th Cir. 1986); for a different result, see In re Grand Jury Investigation, 774 F.2d, 34 (2d Cir. 1985). _______________ Law enforcement officers of other than Federal jurisdiction who are interested in this article should consult their legal adviser. Some police procedures ruled permissible under Federal constitutional law are of questionable legality under State law or are not permitted at all.  Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253