6 1 In particular, the Department of Justice shall assign to the 2 temporary supervision and control of the special judicial 3 prosecutor such personnel as he may reasonably require. 4 "(i) The special judicial prosecutor shall have the au5 thority and responsibility to deal with and appear before con6 gressional committees having jurisdiction over any aspect of 7 the matters covered by this Act, and to provide such infor8 mation, documents, and other evidence as may be necessary 9 and appropriate to enable any such committee to exercise its 10 authorized responsibilities. 11 "(j) The special judicial prosecutor may from time to 12 time make public such statements or reports, not inconsistent 13 with the rights of any accused or convicted persons, as he 14 deems appropriate; and he shall upon completion of his as15 signment submit a final report to the United States district 16 court which empanelled the grand jury in connection with 17 which the special judicial prosecutor was appointed. 18 "(k) The special judicial prosecutor shall carry out his 19 responsibilities under this section until such time as, in his judgment, he has completed them or until a date mutually 20 21 agreed upon between the United States district court judge 22 who appointed the special judicial prosecutor pursuant to 23 subsection (b) and himself. 24 "(1) Any judge of the United States district court, 25 on empanelment of a grand jury, shall charge and inform 26 the grand jury of its rights and duties under this section.". 94TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 10947 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DECEMBER 2, 1975 Mr. BADILLO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To provide the right to counsel to grand jury witnesses in order to better protect the constitutional rights of such witnesses. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That chapter 215 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 4 by adding immediately after section 3328 the following new 5 section: 6 "SEC. 3329. Every witness subpenaed to appear and 7 testify before a grand jury or to produce books, papers, doc8 uments, or other objects before such grand jury shall be en9 titled to have the assistance of counsel, including assistance 10 during such time as the witness is questioned in the grand 11 jury room; such counsel may be retained by the witness or, I 2 1 may, for any person financially unable to obtain adequate 2 assistance, be appointed in the same manner as if that per 3 son were eligible for appointed counsel under section 3006A 4 of this title. The witness' counsel is authorized to disclose, 5 outside the grand jury room, matters which occur before the 6 grand jury while such counsel is present in the grand jury 7 room.". APPENDIX 2 Correspondence GRAND JURORS ASSOCIATION, BRONX COUNTY, INC., Re Grand Jury Reform Act of 1975 (H.R. 1277). Hon. MARIO BIAGGI, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BIAGGI: Thank you very much for your recent letter enclosing a copy of H.R. 1277. In it you advise that you have long felt that the rules governing the appearance of witnesses before grand juries are of dubious quality and ill-defined, and that you have given your wholehearted support to the efforts to reform our grand jury system. Please do not let your idealism, which I endorse, lead you astray. We, in the Grand Jurors Association, are greatly disturbed as citizens and grand jurors by the continued effort at both Federal and State levels to weaken the effectiveness of our grand jury system. Too often so called "reforms" are designed, whether intended or not, to erode and hamstring the people's right to independent inquiry into areas of possible wrongdoing. This freedom must be protected lest we become a nation of sheep unable to effectively monitor our own system of justice. Corollary to this, and of equal importance, is the need to protect the identity and testimony of witnesses. Without such protection the good names, character and reputations of innocents are maligned and irreparably damaged. While the subject bill contains some positive changes, e.g. the appointment of a special attorney upon request of a sitting grand jury, the main thrust is negative for the following reasons: 1. The sections relating to recalcitrant witnesses weaken the grand jury's authority to require testimony, a step in the wrong direction. 2. The sections relating to violations of grand jury secrecy contain unwarranted exemptions for witnesses and their attorneys as well as those who obtain indirect knowledge. Unless and until a crime is charged, secrecy should be binding on all. 3. Even with judicial approval, a grand jury cannot obtain any extension of its term beyond three years. Provision should be made for special circumstances. 4. Witnesses served with a subpoena must be told the subject matter of the investigation. This too can lead to destructive leaks. 5. Witnesses are given the right to have an attorney present while testifying. A grand jury investigation is not an adversary proceeding. Inherent in the presence of defense advocates in the grand jury room is contrived delays, the destruction of the secrecy so necessary to protect the innocent, and most certainly the hampering of any investigation of organized crime or corruption. A witness before a grand jury receives immunity from prosecution for complicity in the crime being investigated. A witness who has waived immunity has the right, and is so instructed, to leave the grand jury room at any time to consult his or her attorney. Bringing the attorney inside adds nothing but grief. Incidentally a similar bill passed by the New York legislature was vetoed by Governor Carey on August 9, 1975. 6. Copy of a witness' testimony, under such conditions as the court deems reasonable (certainly subject to various interpretations), is made available to him or his attorney. Here too, secrecy is endangered. In addition it could make it very unhealthy for a member of organized crime who had secretly turned States' evidence. On balance this is bad legislation, Mr. Biaggi, and we urge you to speak out and vote against it. Thank you for taking the time to read through this longer than intended letter. I do appreciate it as I will appreciate anything you can do to protect the integrity of our grand jury system. Sincerely, JOHN J. LYONS, Chairman, Laws and Legislation Committee. STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Re Grand Jury Reform. House of Representaives, DEAR CONGRESSMAN EILBERG: I share what I understand to be your concern about the immediate need for reform of Grand Jury practices in America. Enclosed you will find a copy of the Grand Jury rules promulgated by the Colorado Supreme Court in late 1974. These rules were the product of a Grand Jury Rules Committee of the Supreme Court on which I served. Frankly, the rules do not go quite as far as the Committee recommended. Our Committee recommended that a witness should be entitled to have his or her attorney present in the Grand Jury room, for example. Here in Denver we have made a conscious effort to restrict Grand Jury matters to matters where the subpoena power is necessary in order to obtain the truth; cases of alleged public corruption, organized criminal activity and other such complex investigations where the Grand Jury process is really necessary. Because 99 percent of all filings are handled by information and not indictment, and because of these limitations on use of the Grand Jury, I believe that the Grand Jury process here has greatly improved and the Grand Juries have become extremely independent, which I think is necessary to the proper functioning of the system. I am sure you are familiar with standard 4.4 of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (enclosed), to this same end. I also recognize the Constitutional question with respect to federal Grand Juries and defendants' right to be charged by indictment in most cases in the federal system. Nevertheless, I want to send this letter to indicate my support for the direction in which discussions of reform seem to be moving. Yours truly, DALE TOOLEY. Rule 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is hereby amended by striking the heading and substituting therefor: "Grand Jury Rules." Rules 6.1 through 6.9 are new rules concerning conduct of the Grand Jury. III. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION RULE 6. GRAND JURY RULES. Rule 6.1. Subpoenas-issuance and time limits Subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum shall be issued in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure and these rules shall be served at least fortyeight hours before any appearance is required before the grand jury, unless waived by the witness. The court, for good cause, may shorten the time limit imposed by this rule. Rule 6.2. Secrecy of proceedings—witness privacy All persons associated with a grand jury and its investigations or functions should at all times be aware that a grand jury is an investigative body, the proceedings of which shall be secret. Witnesses or persons under investigation should be dealt with privately to insure fairness. The oath of secrecy shall continue until such time as an indictment is made public, if an indictment is returned, or until a grand jury report is issued dealing with the investigation. Nothng in this rule shall prevent a disclosure of the general purpose of the grand jury's investigation by the prosecutor. Rule 6.3. Oath of witnesses The following oath shall be administered to each witness testifying before the grand jury: "Do you swear (affirm), under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you are to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that you will keep your testimony secret, except to discuss it with your attorney, or the prosecutor, until and unless an indictment or report is issued?" |