Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealmotiondue processcriminal procedureappellantgrand jury
statuteappealmotiondue processcriminal procedureappellantgrand jury

Related Cases

F.D.I.C. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304
View Case »
Muniz v. Smith, 647 F.3d 619
View Case »
Fusco v. City of Albany, 134 Misc.2d 98, 509 N.Y.S.2d 763
View Case »
Villalobos v. Cicero School Dist. 99, 362 Ill.App.3d 704, 841 N.E.2d 87, 298 Ill.Dec. 944
View Case »
Fausek v. White, 965 F.2d 126, 35 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1225
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Second Report of November, 1968 Grand Jury of Erie County, 26 N.Y.2d 200, 257 N.E.2d 859, 309 N.Y.S.2d 297, 63 A.L.R.3d 571

Facts

The case arose from the acceptance of a grand jury report concerning noncriminal misconduct or neglect in office by public officers. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of section 253-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which authorized the grand jury to submit such reports. They sought to inspect the grand jury minutes to prepare their appeals and answers to the report, but their motions were denied by the court, leading to the appeal.

Following acceptance of that report by the court, the appellants moved to inspect the minutes in order to assist them in proceeding with their appeal and obtaining information to enable them to file a more complete answer.

Issue

Whether the denial of the appellants' motions for inspection of the grand jury minutes constituted a violation of their due process rights.

The appellants challenge the constitutionality of section 253—a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the statute which authorizes the grand jury to submit a report to the court concerning noncriminal misconduct or neglect in office by a public officer or employee.

Rule

Due process requires that evidence before a grand jury relating to individuals named in a report concerning noncriminal misconduct must be made available to them before they are required to file their answers.

The demands of due process, a regard for fundamental fairness, dictated that the evidence before the grand jury relating to the appellants should have been made available to them not only before they went forward with their appeals but before they were required to file their answers.

Analysis

The court found that the denial of access to the grand jury minutes impeded the appellants' ability to prepare their responses to the charges against them. The court emphasized that unless the minutes contained confidential information or disclosure would harm public interest, the appellants should have been granted access to the minutes to ensure fundamental fairness in the proceedings.

In view of the secrecy which must, of necessity, attend proceedings of the grand jury, a right sense of justice requires that those who must ‘answer (the) report’ should first be accorded an examination of the minutes so that they may intelligently prepare their answer and attempt to refute the charges leveled against them.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the orders of the lower court and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of due process in allowing the appellants to inspect the grand jury minutes.

The orders appealed from should be reversed and the matter remitted to the County Court of Erie County for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Who won?

The appellants prevailed because the court recognized their due process rights were violated by the denial of access to the grand jury minutes.

The court's denial of this motion was premised on the ground that it lacked authority to grant such an application (Memorandum of Heffron, J., July 21, 1969).

You must be