FEDERAL GRAND JURY
The 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Williams established that the federal courts do not possess an inherent power to supervise the federal grand jury. 30 Without congressional action, then, there is no effective judicial remedy for federal pros- ecutorial excesses in the grand jury process. Because the grand jury operates virtually under total prosecutorial control, federal prosecutors can, and sometimes do, manipulate the proceedings. Fairness to the grand jury target — and respect for the grand jury’s independence — requires that the prosecu- tion be required to present to the grand jury known evidence negating guilt. To effectuate this proposal, Congress should pass legislation authorizing the court’s dismissal, with or without prejudice, of an indictment based upon the prosecutor’s viola- tion of this principle. This way, the federal courts would be able to check and balance prosecutorial powers, to safeguard the citizenry and the legal system against prosecutori- al excesses in the federal grand jury. This reform will not disrupt the efficient operation of the grand jury process. It does not shift hearings back to the grand jury stage of proceedings. Rather, the defense motion to dismiss would be made, and addressed by a court, post-indictment (but still pre-trial), only. 3. The prosecutor shall not present to the federal grand jury evidence which he or she knows to be constitutionally inadmissible at trial because of a court rul- ing on the matter. In United States v. Calandra , the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply in grand jury proceedings. 31 Although evidence illegally obtained by electronic surveillance is specifically excluded by statute from use in the federal grand jury, 32 under Calandra, virtually all other illegally seized evidence is admissible in the grand jury. Calandra observed that “for the most part, a prosecutor would be unlikely to request an indictment where a conviction would not be obtained.” 33 But even if this debatable proposition is accepted, there should be no basis even for a prosecutor to consider utilizing in the grand jury evidence he or she knows to be unlawfully obtained. If the federal grand jury is to serve its historical function of being shield as well as sword, the integrity of the process must be maintained. Since the Supreme Court has decided it does not possess the inherent power to supervise the federal grand jury, legis- lation excluding unconstitutionally obtained evidence from the process is necessary. To effectuate this principle, the federal courts must be congressionally empowered to dismiss, with or without prejudice, an indictment obtained even in part by violation of this basic rule. Under this proposal, the court would not be able to dismiss if a violation is deemed to be harmless error — that is, if other, admissible evidence before the grand jury sustains the indictment. This reform will not disrupt the grand jury process. Like Recommended Reform Right Two, it would not shift suppression and/or dismissal hearings back to the grand jury stage of proceedings. The suppression or dismissal motion would be made post-indict- ment (but still pre-trial), only.
11
H H H
Made with FlippingBook Online document maker