United States v. Woodberry
1:20-cr-00031
E.D.N.YJul 1, 2021Background
- Gerod Woodberry was charged in a six‑count federal indictment for three bank robberies and three attempted bank robberies occurring Dec 30, 2019–Jan 14, 2020; he was arrested Jan 17, 2020.
- Woodberry had been arrested on state charges and released without bail under New York’s new bail‑reform law before some alleged federal incidents occurred.
- The EDNY USAO filed a public detention memorandum and then issued a press release and a statement by the U.S. Attorney criticizing NY bail reform and describing Woodberry’s alleged six‑incident „spree;” both noted the presumption of innocence.
- The statement was widely disseminated by major media outlets shortly before a federal grand jury returned the indictment on Jan 23, 2020.
- Woodberry moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the USAO’s publicity violated local and DOJ pretrial‑publicity rules, prejudiced the grand jury, and warranted either disclosure of grand jury materials or a change of venue.
- The Government opposed; the district court denied dismissal and Woodberry’s alternative requests (grand jury disclosure and change of venue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Woodberry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether press release/statement violated grand‑jury/pretrial publicity rules and warranted dismissal | Statements were factual, fell within permitted disclosures, and did not violate the narrow "clear rules" requiring dismissal | USAO’s release and Donoghue’s statement unlawfully opined on guilt/character, were prejudicial, and came from the U.S. Attorney so are especially problematic | Denied—statements were largely factual or public record; dismissal is a drastic remedy and requires a showing of rule violation plus prejudice, which was not shown |
| Whether the prosecutor’s publicity substantially influenced the grand jury so as to require dismissal | No evidence that publicity influenced grand jurors or that a recognized grand‑jury rule was violated | Media dissemination of the USAO statement prejudiced the grand jury and tainted the process | Denied—no violation of the few "clear rules" and no showing that the grand jury’s decision was substantially influenced |
| Whether grand‑jury minutes should be disclosed under Rule 6(e) | Disclosure not justified absent particularized need outweighing secrecy | Public statements by the USAO shortly before indictment create a particularized need to inspect grand‑jury proceedings | Denied—defendant failed to meet the particularized‑need standard; assertions were speculative |
| Whether venue transfer is required under Rule 21(a) due to pretrial publicity | Large, diverse EDNY jury pool and publicity has dissipated; voir dire can protect impartiality | Publicity (and its tie to hot‑button bail‑reform politics) makes fair trial in EDNY impossible | Denied—no proof of pervasive, enduring prejudice; size/diversity of jury pool and passage of time weigh against transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (supervisory power to dismiss indictment limited to violations of narrow, established grand‑jury rules)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988) (dismissal requires showing that error substantially influenced grand jury or grave doubt exists)
- United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2018) (reiterating high bar for supervisory dismissal and prejudice requirement)
- United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (factors for evaluating publicity and dismissal; limits on court authority)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (large, diverse jury pools make prejudice less likely; voir dire is effective)</n* United States v. Silver, 103 F. Supp. 3d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (criticized USAO statement but denied dismissal where publicity alone was insufficient)
- Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979) (balancing public interest in grand jury secrecy against need for disclosure)
- United States v. Burke, 700 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1983) (speculative claims of prejudice insufficient to warrant relief)
- United States v. Moten, 582 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1978) (defendant must show particularized need to overcome grand jury secrecy)
- United States v. Maldonado‑Rivera, 922 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1990) (factors courts may consider when assessing venue transfer request)