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

defendantlitigationattorneymotionwilldiscriminationharassmentcivil rightsprosecutorgrand jury
defendantattorneydiscoverywillgrand jury

Related Cases

People v. DePallo, 96 N.Y.2d 437, 754 N.E.2d 751, 729 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 05941
View Case »
Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 61 F.Supp.3d 272
View Case »
Denney v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, 230 F.R.D. 317, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,837
View Case »
Langlois v. Deja Vu, Inc., 984 F.Supp. 1327
View Case »
Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Mathews, 283 S.W.3d 741
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Rochon, 686 F.Supp. 195

Facts

Donald Rochon, a black FBI agent, and his wife Susan alleged discrimination and harassment by FBI officials due to Rochon's race. They claimed the Department of Justice failed to investigate their charges and obstructed other agencies' investigations. The Rochons filed two federal civil actions, one in Chicago and one in Washington, D.C., naming various defendants, including the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General. A grand jury investigation was initiated into the allegations, leading the Rochons to seek disqualification of the prosecutors involved.

Donald Rochon is a black Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) agent. Donald and his wife Susan allege that various FBI officials and employees discriminated against them and harassed them because of Donald's race.

Issue

Whether the prosecutors conducting the grand jury investigation should be disqualified due to potential conflicts of interest arising from their roles in related civil litigation.

The two leading cases on disclosure of grand jury materials to Justice Department attorneys are United States v. Sells Eng'g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 103 S.Ct. 3133, 77 L.Ed.2d 743 (1983) and United States v. John Doe, Inc. I, 481 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1656, 95 L.Ed.2d 94 (1987).

Rule

The court applied the principle that attorneys involved in a grand jury investigation must not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the integrity of the investigation, particularly when they are also parties in related civil litigation.

The court understands that the civil defendants might ultimately acquire in civil discovery all, or substantially all, of the information they might acquire as a result of the grand jury investigation.

Analysis

The court determined that while the Civil Rights Division attorneys not named as defendants could continue the grand jury investigation, the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General could not participate due to the inherent conflict of interest. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the grand jury process and preventing any appearance of impropriety, especially since the civil defendants were involved in the same subject matter as the grand jury investigation.

The court believes that equally reasonable arguments are suggested by the Rochons: It cannot be a matter of professional indifference to Messrs. Meese and Reynolds that they are charged in a civil case with what is, to say the least, malfeasance by the Department they supervise.

Conclusion

The court disqualified Attorney General Edwin Meese and Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds from participating in the grand jury investigation, while allowing other Department of Justice attorneys to proceed under strict conditions to ensure separation from the civil litigation.

Attorney General Edwin Meese and Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds are hereby disqualified from participating any further in the grand jury investigation concerning the allegations made by Donald and Susan Rochon.

Who won?

The Rochons prevailed in their motion to disqualify the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General from the grand jury investigation due to the potential for conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety.

The court believes that such drastic relief is not required and that there is no reason the court cannot place confidence in a 'Chinese wall' approach of the kind mentioned above.

You must be