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

defendantmotioncase lawcriminal proceduregrand jurymotion to dismiss

defendantcase lawgrand jury

Related Cases

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Richard A. Causey and Jeffrey K. Skilling, Defendants., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 1243912

Facts

On February 18, 2004, a special grand jury was impaneled to investigate potential offenses related to Enron and subsequently returned a superseding indictment against Skilling. Skilling's counsel requested various documents related to the grand jury selection process, but the Chief Deputy Clerk stated that such documents could not be disclosed without a court order due to the secrecy provisions of the Jury Selection Plan and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Skilling argued that he needed these records to prepare a motion to dismiss the indictment.

On February 18, 2004, an SGJ impaneled by the court to investigate potential offenses related to Enron returned a superseding indictment against the defendants in this case.

Issue

Whether Skilling is entitled to inspect and obtain disclosure of the grand jury selection records under the Jury Selection and Service Act and the Fifth Amendment.

Rule

The Jury Selection and Service Act guarantees federal defendants the right to grand juries selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community, and defendants have an essentially unqualified right to inspect jury selection records to prepare challenges to the jury selection process.

The JSSA guarantees federal criminal defendants 'the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes.' 28 U.S.C. § 1861.

Analysis

The court analyzed Skilling's request in light of the JSSA and relevant case law, concluding that while Skilling had a right to inspect the master jury wheel, the identities of the jurors must remain confidential. The court recognized the importance of ensuring that the jury selection process was not discriminatory while also adhering to the confidentiality requirements of grand jury proceedings.

Conclusion

The court granted Skilling access to the master jury wheels for the Houston and Galveston divisions, with the condition that all identifying information of jurors be redacted. The court also stated that any further requests for disclosure of juror identities must be directed to the Chief Judge.

The court granted Skilling access to the master jury wheels for the Houston and Galveston divisions, with the condition that all identifying information of jurors be redacted.

Who won?

Jeffrey K. Skilling prevailed in part, as the court allowed him access to the master jury wheels, which is essential for his defense, while still protecting the confidentiality of juror identities.

Skilling prevailed in part, as the court allowed him access to the master jury wheels, which is essential for his defense, while still protecting the confidentiality of juror identities.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Matter of John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 562 N.E.2d 69, 59 USLW 2329

U.S. v. Snitz, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 433620

Rodella v. United States, 435 F.Supp.3d 1222

Wilson P. Abraham Const. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 559 F.2d 250, 1977-2 Trade Cases P 61,625

White v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 639 F.Supp. 82