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

subpoenaappealgrand jury
statutegrand jury

Related Cases

Lewis v. United States, 263 A.3d 1049
View Case »
Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123, 54 USLW 4194
View Case »
Lattanzio v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 476 F.3d 147, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,150
View Case »
Coffey v. Commissioner of Social Sec., Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 5602945
View Case »
U.S. v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 776 F.2d 1099, 18 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1413

Facts

This case arises from a grand jury investigation by the FBI into alleged illegal activities of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC). Barger was subpoenaed to testify but refused to answer certain questions on First Amendment grounds, leading to a contempt ruling by Judge Leisure. Despite being granted statutory immunity, Barger continued to refuse to answer questions regarding the club's structure and operations, resulting in his contempt citation.

This case arises out of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into allegedly illegal activities of members and associates of the HAMC.

Issue

Did the First Amendment create a privilege for Barger against testifying before the grand jury about the membership, funding, and organizational structure of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club?

Barger claims that the First Amendment creates a privilege against his testifying before the grand jury about the membership, funding, and organizational structure of the HAMC.

Rule

The court applied the standard that the interests of the state must be compelling and able to survive exacting scrutiny, and there must be a substantial relation between the governmental interest and the information required to be disclosed.

First, the interests of the state must be “compelling,” Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524, 80 S.Ct. 412, 417, 4 L.Ed.2d 480 (1960), and able to survive “exacting scrutiny,” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64, 96 S.Ct. 612, 656, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam), as to whether they are “sufficiently important to outweigh the possibility of infringement.”

Analysis

The court found that the government's interest in investigating crime, particularly related to drug trafficking and organized crime, was compelling. The questions posed to Barger were relevant to the grand jury's investigation into the HAMC's activities, and the court determined that Barger had not demonstrated any particularized harm that would justify shielding him from testifying.

The questions that Barger refuses to answer are relevant to the enterprise elements of the RICO and CCE statutes and are part of a good-faith investigation that has already resulted in numerous indictments.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt order, concluding that Barger was required to testify before the grand jury despite his First Amendment claims.

The order of contempt is therefore affirmed.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case as the court upheld the contempt ruling against Barger, emphasizing the compelling governmental interest in the investigation.

The United States prevailed in the case as the court upheld the contempt ruling against Barger, emphasizing the compelling governmental interest in the investigation.

You must be