Williams v. Bruscato
128 N.E.3d 1226
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Marvin Williams (plaintiff) requested under FOIA: (1) grand-jury "no bills" and "true bills" for May 7 and May 14, 1997; (2) the grand jury deliberations and votes for May 14, 1997 in his criminal case; and (3) itinerary sheets listing names/dates for those grand-jury sessions.
- Winnebago County State’s Attorney (defendant) denied disclosure, citing FOIA exemption 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a) and grand-jury secrecy under 725 ILCS 5/112-6.
- Plaintiff sued for FOIA violations; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant on all counts.
- On appeal the court reviewed de novo whether the requested materials are exempt as "matters occurring before the grand jury" and thus excluded by FOIA §7(1)(a) via §112-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it held no-bills and itinerary sheets are exempt; grand-jury deliberations and votes are secret; true bills (bills of indictment) are public but witness identities in those bills are protected and must be redacted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are "no bills" (grand-jury decisions not to indict) disclosable under FOIA? | Williams initially sought names but on appeal proposed redacted lists; argued they should be produced. | §112-6 requires grand-jury secrecy; disclosure would harm reputations of persons not indicted. | No. "No bills" are secret under §112-6 and exempt via FOIA §7(1)(a); appellate court enforces forfeiture of the new redaction request. |
| Are "true bills" (bills of indictment) disclosable under FOIA? | True bills are returned in open court (per §112-4(d)) and thus are public. | Even if bills are public, witness identities and materials revealing witness identities are grand-jury matters and secret. | Partially yes. The bills themselves are public, but witness names and other grand-jury matter must be redacted; court ordered production with witness names redacted. |
| Are grand-jury deliberations and individual juror votes disclosable? | Williams argued §112-6(b) does not prohibit disclosure of "the deliberations and vote of any grand juror." | Reading §112-6 as a whole shows those deliberations and votes are excluded from permitted disclosures. | No. Deliberations and votes are secret and not subject to disclosure under §112-6 and FOIA §7(1)(a). |
| Are itinerary sheets listing persons presented to the grand jury and dates/times disclosable? | Williams argued lists are not "occurrences" before the grand jury and were created by staff outside the grand-jury room. | Disclosure would identify unindicted persons and reveal grand-jury activities; §112-6 protection applies. | No. Itinerary sheets are "matters occurring before the grand jury" (they identify persons/dates) and are exempt from FOIA. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor, 2019 IL 122949 (describes grand jury function and FOIA secrecy principles)
- Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (historical purpose of grand jury and its role)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (grand jury dual function and secrecy rationale)
- Douglas Oil Co. of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (grand-jury secrecy interests persist after proceedings end)
- People v. Johnson, 31 Ill. 2d 602 (policy of protecting unindicted persons from exposure)
- Lopez v. Department of Justice, 393 F.3d 1345 ("matters occurring before the grand jury" includes identities and other secret aspects)
- United States v. Phillips, 843 F.2d 438 (definition of matters occurring before the grand jury as revealing what transpired)
- Murphy v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, 789 F.3d 204 (dates/times of grand-jury meetings protected under Rule 6(e))