United States v. Mitchell
3:14-cr-00306
M.D. Ala.May 4, 2015Background
- Mitchell moves to compel production of all grand jury testimony regardless of trial witness status; recommendation is to deny.
- Government has produced transcripts for eight witnesses eight months before trial and argues broader production is not required.
- Defendant contends production is necessary to safeguard Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and trial preparation.
- Defendant also seeks case agent testimony and argues Rule 16(a)(1)(G) requires broader disclosure than the government provides.
- Court reiterates grand jury secrecy but acknowledges limited authority to disclose under a 'particularized need' showing; defendant fails to meet that standard.
- Court concludes defendant’s generalized objections and absence of a demonstrated particularized need do not justify disclosure; motion denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a particularized need to disclose all grand jury testimony? | Mitchell argues for broader disclosure for trial prep and parity with witnesses. | Mitchell contends secrecy infringes his defense and that disclosure is necessary to prepare. | No particularized need shown; denial. |
| Does the Sixth Amendment require production of grand jury testimony not intended for trial? | Mitchell asserts impairment of effective assistance without transcripts. | Mitchell relies on general Sixth Amendment interests in trial preparation. | Not supported; denial. |
| Does Rule 16(a)(1)(G) compel disclosure of grand jury testimony or summaries beyond expert summaries? | Mitchell argues the rule requires broader disclosure, including non-expert grand jury testimony. | Mitchell contends any grand jury testimony related to experts should be disclosed. | Government compliance with Rule 16(a)(1)(G) is sufficient; denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blalock v. United States, 844 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988) (grand jury secrecy policy)
- United States v. Wingo, 723 F. Supp. 798 (N.D. Ga. 1989) (district court may compel grand jury transcripts in limited circumstances)
- In re Subpoena to Testify before Grand Jury, 864 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1989) (particularized need test for disclosure)
- Burke v. United States, 856 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1988) (particularized need must be shown; general motions insufficient)
- Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1966) (freshness of grand jury testimony supports disclosure under ends-of-justice relief)
- United States v. Elliott, 849 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1988) (particularized-need framework for grand jury disclosure)
- United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2004) (limits on disclosure under Rule 16; expert summaries)