Opinion
CR.A.Nos. IN00-11-1484-RI; IN00-11-1485-RI; IN00-11-1486-RI.
Submitted: July 14, 2008.
Decided: August 27, 2008.
Upon Consideration of Defendant's Pro Se Motion to Compel Disclosure of Grand Jury Proceedings, DEF. ID.: 0007020610.
DENIED.ORDER
This 27th day of August, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion to Compel Disclosure of Grand Jury Proceedings brought by Bruce Wright ("Defendant"), it appears to the Court that:
1. Defendant was sentenced on April 5, 2002 to 32 years in prison after a jury convicted him on February 2, 2002 of Murder in the Second Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon or Ammunition by a Person Prohibited.
2. On July 3, 2008, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Production of the Grand Jury Proceedings and filed a subsequent motion, identical to the first, on July 11, 2008. Defendant then filed a Motion to Amend the previous motions on July 25, 2008. In his pleadings, Defendant asserts that he has a "particularized need" for the grand jury proceedings because he wants to ensure that the grand jury was presented with sufficient evidence to indict him. He specifically wants to know: (1) if the grand jury heard testimony from co-conspirators; and (2) if the grand jury knew that co-conspirators would be charged as well.
Docket Item ("D.I.") 67; D.I. 68.
D.I. 69.
D.I. 67 at 3; D.I. 68 at 3.
D.I. 69 at 2.
3. Grand jury proceedings are generally protected by a "veil of secrecy." As this Court has explained:
In re Jessup's Petition, 136 A.2d 207, 213-14 (Del Super. Ct. 1957). See also Mell v. New Castle County, 2004 WL 1790140 *4 (Del.Super.Ct. Aug. 4, 2004).
[I]f preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify would be aware of that testimony. Moreover, witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly, as they would be open to retribution as well as to inducements. There also would be a risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors to vote against indictment. Finally, by preserving the secrecy of the proceedings, we assure that persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury will not be held up to public ridicule.
Mell, 2004 WL 1790140 at *4. See also In re Jessup's Petition, 136 A.2d at 214-15 (where the court offered the following to "summarize" the need for keeping grand jury proceedings secret: (1) "[t]o prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated;" (2) "to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberation, and to prevent persons subject to indictments or their friends from importuning the grand jurors;" (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it;" (4) "to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes;" and (5) "to protect (the) innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.") (internal citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
4. Although grand jury proceedings are generally confidential, there are exceptions to the general rule. The Superior Court may order disclosure of grand jury proceedings when: (1) "the public interest in disclosure of the proceeding overrides the public interest in maintaining the secrecy of the Grand Jury proceeding;" or (2) "the primary and traditional reasons for maintaining the veil of secrecy around the Grand Jury proceedings are no longer operative."
In re Steigler, 250 A.2d 379, 383 (Del. 1969) ("[I]n circumstances where the interests of justice require it, disclosure of proceedings before the Grand Jury may be ordered by the Superior Court."); In re Jessup's Petition, 136 A.2d at 217 (holding that the Superior Court "has the discretionary power to pierce the veil of secrecy [surrounding grand jury proceedings] when justice demands it. . . .").
In re Jessup's Petition, 136 A.2d at 218.
5. Although compelling the disclosure of grand jury proceedings is well within the discretion of the Superior Court, it "has rarely, if ever been granted:"
In instances where a defendant has sought the release of a transcript of Grand Jury testimony, or has sought to examine grand jurors or witnesses before the Grand Jury, the Court, while expressly or impliedly recognizing its discretionary authority to grant such a release in the interest of justice, has found that the policy of maintaining the secrecy of Grand Jury proceedings overrode and outweighed any public interest in disclosure. . . . Thus, the Court's oft-stated discretion to lift the veil of secrecy when `the ends of justice' or `the rights of the public require it' . . . or when `the interest of justice [will] best be sub-served' . . . has seldom, if ever, been exercised in the field of criminal judicial proceedings.
Id. at 215.
6. Defendant's motions to compel disclosure of the grand jury proceedings in his case must be denied because he fails to show that "the public interest in disclosure of the proceeding overrides the public interest in maintaining the secrecy of the Grand Jury proceeding." Defendant claims a need to review the grand jury proceedings to ensure that there was sufficient evidence to indict him with First Degree Conspiracy. However, the State dropped this charge before trial. Because the State did not proceed with this charge, there is no need for Defendant to review the grand jury proceedings in connection with the Conspiracy charge. Moreover, even if the Defendant had been convicted of the charge, his desire to "double check" the work of the Grand Jury — without any proferred basis to call that work into question — would unlikely justify the disclosure of Grand Jury testimony.
7. Defendant also fails to show that "the primary and traditional reasons for maintaining the veil of secrecy around the Grand Jury proceedings are no longer operative." It appears that Defendant's sole motivation is to uncover the identity of those who testified against him before the grand jury. With this in mind, there is a continuing need in this case to keep the grand jury proceedings secret in order to protect those who may have testified before the grand jury and "to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes."
In re Jessup's Petition, 136 A.2d at 215.
7. Based on the forgoing, Defendant's Motion to Compel Disclosure of the Grand Jury proceedings is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.