|
Can a U.S. Attorney tell someone they
are being investigated by a grand jury?
Can a U.S. Attorney tell someone the grand jury did not indict them?
Hello, I am an investor in a small company named XYZ,
Inc. A magazine recently published that XYZ, Inc. was under federal
investigation for criminal activity (fraud) by its executives, and that a
Federal Grand Jury in Florida was hearing evidence and testimony. XZY,
Inc.’s executives claimed, immediately after the Barron's article appeared,
that they did not know about the Grand Jury. Having reviewed your web-site,
I did see that the defendants need not be notified that a rand Jury is
investigating them. So it seemed reasonable for XYZ, Inc. to state that they
did not know about the Grand Jury. However, XYZ, Inc. promised to look into
this matter and get back with its shareholders. After a day, XYZ. Inc.
announced that they had confirmed with the U.S. Attorney that a Grand Jury
proceeding against them was taking place.
FIRST QUESTION: Since the Grand Jury participants are
sworn to secrecy, how could the U.S. Attorney confirm to XYZ, Inc. that they
are being investigated? Is perhaps only the evidenced discussed secret, and
not the identity of the defendant?
SECOND QUESTION: I assume if the Grand Jury issues
indictments, this will clearly be a public proceeding as this heads to
trial. However, what happens if they return a "no true bill." Are there any
requirements for the Grand Jury to disclose all their deliberations, once
complete, whether they resulted in indictments or not? Do you think the U.S.
Attorney as a matter of courtesy would notify XYZ, Inc. if the Grand Jury
did not call for an indictment? Thanks for your time.
|
Response:
FIRST QUESTION: Well, the federal rule governing
grand jury secrecy is that it encompasses "matters occurring before the
grand jury", which could certainly be construed as encompassing the
identify of those who are being investigated . . . but prosecutors
routinely give out information about the general focus of
investigations. This is inconsistent with one of the purposes of grand
jury secrecy, which is to protect innocent parties who are investigated
but cleared, but it seems to be accepted practice, notwithstanding that.
SECOND QUESTION: No public disclosure of a grand
jury's failure to indict; that would clearly violate grand jury secrecy,
as it would reveal matters occurring before a grand jury . . . and it
really establishes nothing, since a second grand jury can consider the
matter and indict, if it decides that is warranted. As to whether the
U.S. Attorney would tell a company they were not indicted, I really do
not know, though I doubt it . . . especially if the government intends
to try again with a new grand jury.
NOTE: None of this is legal advice, as I do not
tender legal advice. It is a statement of general practices, which is
all I can do, since I really do not have all the facts. Notwithstanding
that, I hope it is helpful.
SWB
2002 |
|
