Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 3:10-524-CMC
05-09-2013
United States of America, v. Marcus Dewayne Jones, Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
Defendant has filed a motion "Requesting Disclosure of Grand Jury Transcripts Pursuant to . . . Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii)." (ECF No. 118). Defendant seeks production of transcripts of testimony before the grand jury to "show[ ] the court that [the] government's prosecutor present[ed] immunized statements before the grand jury to secure an indictment on Count One." Id. at 3.
In certain situations, disclosure of grand jury minutes and transcripts is appropriate where justice demands. Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 219 (1978). These situations have been codified at Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(C) which provides for disclosure:
(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding; [or]F.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(E). Accordingly, upon a showing of "particularized need" the court may grant disclosure of matters involving grand jury proceedings. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681-82 (1958).
(ii) at the request of the defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury . . . .
Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the Government and, after a thorough Rule 11 hearing, was adjudged guilty. Because Defendant made a reliable admission of factual guilt which was affirmed on appeal, any claim regarding an alleged violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination will necessarily fail. That is, because Defendant admitted he committed the crime charged in Count 1 of the Indictment, he cannot show prejudice from any alleged error in grand jury proceedings relating to Count 1.
See United States v. Jones, 466 F. App'x 180 (4th Cir. 2012).
As noted by the Government in its Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, the Government has a variety of other information which was presented to the Grand Jury relating to Count 1. See Mem. Supp. at 8-9 (ECF No. 112-1).
--------
Therefore, as Defendant will be unable to establish prejudice relating to the first ground for relief contained in his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Defendant cannot establish a particularized need for production of the transcript. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
May 9, 2013