In re Grand Jury of Douglas Cty., 302 Neb. 128

Douglas County impaneled a grand jury after the in-custody death of Zachary Bearheels; the grand jury returned indictments against two police officers.
The district court sua sponte ordered a transcript and exhibits of the grand jury proceedings to be prepared and "available for public review" under the 2016 amendment, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1407.01(2)(b).
The special prosecutor moved to seal the grand jury documents, arguing the statute was intended to increase transparency only when a grand jury returns a no-true-bill and that disclosure during pending prosecutions would harm prosecutions.
The district court held a hearing, denied the motion, and limited disclosure to in-person review via the clerk (no dissemination or photocopying).
The special prosecutor appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, challenging the court’s statutory interpretation and seeking review of the disclosure order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a hearing on a motion to prevent public disclosure under § 29-1407.01(2)(b) is a "special proceeding"	The statute does not create a special proceeding amenable to interlocutory appellate review in this context	The court’s action enforcing the statute and motions arising from it are part of a special proceeding	Held: Yes; such motions and the hearing are part of a special proceeding (special statutory remedy outside chapter 25)
Whether the district court’s order overruling the State’s motion affected a "substantial right" making it a final, appealable order	Disclosure of grand jury materials before trial impairs prosecutions: chills witnesses, prejudices jury pool, and thus affects the State’s substantial rights	The court’s limited disclosure procedure and availability of protective orders or mandamus preserve parties’ rights; no concrete showing of irreparable harm	Held: No; the order did not affect a substantial right under the circumstances and is not final and appealable
Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the disclosure order	Special prosecutor asserted appellate review was proper because the court ordered disclosure contrary to the State’s view of the statute	Media and others argued transparency is statutorily mandated; court’s tailored release mitigates claimed harms	Held: No jurisdiction — appeal dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order

Fidler v. Life Care Centers of America, 301 Neb. 724 (jurisdictional question as matter of law)
State v. Coble, 299 Neb. 434 (court has jurisdiction over incidental motions within scope of its jurisdiction)
Deines v. Essex Corp., 293 Neb. 577 (factors for determining whether order affects substantial right)
State v. Jackson, 291 Neb. 908 (definition of affecting substantial rights)
In re Grand Jury of Lancaster Cty., 269 Neb. 436 (prior grand jury disclosure review)
In re Grand Jury of Douglas Cty., 263 Neb. 981 (prior grand jury disclosure review)
In re Grand Jury of Douglas Cty., 244 Neb. 798 (prior grand jury disclosure review)
Williams v. Baird, 273 Neb. 977 (examples of special proceedings)
State v. Silvers, 255 Neb. 702 (orders in special proceedings affect substantial rights)
City of Lincoln v. Twin Platte NRD, 250 Neb. 452 (finality in special proceedings)
State v. Dixon, 282 Neb. 274 (pretrial publicity concerns and factual showing)