Opinion
Case No. 05-20048
06-03-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LEE HENRY BERRY aka Alvin King, Defendant.
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS
In 2007, a jury found Defendant Lee Henry Berry guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1), and felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On April 25, 2014, Defendant Lee Henry Berry filed a motion for production of the grand jury transcripts. Berry claims that he has a particularized need for the transcripts because they would presumably demonstrate the "improprieties in the investigation toward defendant . . . ." Mot. 1.
"The court may authorize disclosure . . . of a grand jury matter . . . preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(I). Under the rule, "[t]he burden is on the defense to show that 'a particularized need' exists for the [transcripts] that outweighs the policy of secrecy." Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 400 (1959). Rule 6 codifies "the long-established policy that maintains the secrecy of grand jury proceedings in the federal courts." Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 677, 681 (1958).
Here, Berry has not shown a particularized need for the grand jury transcripts. He asserts that he had no ties to a certain address and did not conspire with a Mr. Melvin Hoskin "in any criminal doings. However, Berry does not explain how these assertions demonstrate a defect in the grand jury proceeding, nor does he explain how production of the grand jury testimony would provide support for his claims. Therefore, his assertions that he did had no ties to a certain address or to a Mr. Melvin Hoskin are not enough to constitute a particularized need. United States v. Short, 671 F.2d 178, 187 (6th Cir.1982) ("A general claim ... that disclosure of grand jury transcripts would reveal exculpatory evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of showing particularized need.").
Moreover, the Government attests that it has already provided Berry with a copy of the grand jury transcripts. Response Ex. 1, ECF No. 129.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Production of Grand Jury Transcripts (ECF No. 125) is DENIED.
__________
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and upon Lee Henry Berry #05032-039 at Mckean Federal Correctional Institution, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box 8000, Bradford, PA 16701 first class U.S. mail on June 3, 2014.
__________
TRACY A. JACOBS