U.S. v. Jackson

10 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Dudenhoefer

    1:21-cr-39 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2023)

    McDowell, 888 F.2d at 289; United States v. Jackson, 363 Fed.Appx. 159, 161 (3d Cir. 2010). Vague allegations, bald assertions of impropriety, or speculation about what the grand jury materials may reveal are insufficient to establish a particularized need for disclosure.

  2. United States v. Pollard

    CRIMINAL 20-29 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2022)

    A defendant may be entitled to review grand jury testimony after a witness “testified on direct examination at trial if their grand jury testimony was related to the subject matter of their trial testimony.” United States v. Jackson, 363 Fed.Appx. 159, 161 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)); United States v. Wong, 78 F.3d 73, 83 (2d Cir.1996); and United States v. Budzanoski, 462 F.2d 443, 454 (3d Cir.1972)). In addition, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) provides that “[t]he court may authorize disclosure - at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other condition that it directs - of a grand jury matter: (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury.”

  3. United States v. McBroom

    CRIMINAL 21-97 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 12, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    United States v. McDowell, 888 F.2d 285, 289 (3d Cir. 1989). A defendant may be entitled to review grand jury testimony after a witness “testified on direct examination at trial if their grand jury testimony was related to the subject matter of their trial testimony.” United States v. Jackson, 363 Fed.Appx. 159, 161 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e); United States v. Wong, 78 F.3d 73, 83 (2d Cir.1996); and United States v. Budzanoski, 462 F.2d 443, 454 (3d Cir.1972)). In addition, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) provides that “[t]he court may authorize disclosure - at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other condition that it directs - of a grand jury matter: (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury.”

  4. United States v. Nunez

    2:19-CR-00381-MJH (W.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 2021)

    A defendant may be entitled to review grand jury testimony after a witness "testified on direct examination at trial if their grand jury testimony was related to the subject matter of their trial testimony." United States v. Jackson, 363 F. App'x 159, 161 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e); United States v. Wong, 78 F.3d 73, 83 (2d Cir. 1996); and United States v. Budzanoski, 462 F.2d 443, 454 (3d Cir. 1972)). In addition, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) provides that "[t]he court may authorize disclosure - at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other condition that it directs - of a grand jury matter: (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury."

  5. United States v. Watson

    No. 2:20-cr-112-NR (W.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    A defendant may be entitled to review grand jury testimony after a witness "testifie[s] on direct examination at trial if their grand jury testimony was related to the subject matter of their trial testimony." United States v. Jackson, 363 F. App'x 159, 161 (3d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Otherwise, "[t]o support a motion for a judicially ordered disclosure of grand jury testimony, a party must show a particularized need for that information which outweighs the public interest in secrecy."

  6. United States v. Searcy

    Criminal No. 19-135 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2020)   Cited 5 times

    A defendant may be entitled to review grand jury testimony after a witness "testified on direct examination at trial if their grand jury testimony was related to the subject matter of their trial testimony." United States v. Jackson, 363 F. App'x 159, 161 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e); United States v. Wong, 78 F.3d 73, 83 (2d Cir.1996); and United States v. Budzanoski, 462 F.2d 443, 454 (3d Cir.1972)). In addition, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) provides that "[t]he court may authorize disclosure - at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other condition that it directs - of a grand jury matter: (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury."

  7. United States v. Cameron Basking

    Criminal No. 19-193 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2020)

    A defendant may be entitled to review grand jury testimony after a witness "testified on direct examination at trial if their grand jury testimony was related to the subject matter of their trial testimony." United States v. Jackson, 363 F. App'x 159, 161 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e); United States v. Wong, 78 F.3d 73, 83 (2d Cir.1996); and United States v. Budzanoski, 462 F.2d 443, 454 (3d Cir.1972)). In addition, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) provides that "[t]he court may authorize disclosure - at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other condition that it directs - of a grand jury matter: (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury."

  8. United States v. Kenneth

    CR 9-105 (W.D. Pa. Jun. 15, 2017)

    As regards the disclosure of grand jury materials, such disclosure requires a "particularized need ... which outweighs the public interest in secrecy." United States v. Jackson, 363 Fed. Appx. 159, 161 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2010) (quoting United States v. McDowell, 888 F.2d 285, 289 (3d Cir. 1989)). A "particularized need" is required because "[a]s a matter of public policy, grand jury proceedings generally must remain secret except where there is a compelling necessity."

  9. United States v. Moleski

    Grim. No.: 12-811 (FLW) (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2014)

    In other words, a defendant seeking access to grand jury proceedings must show "a particularized need before the grand jury [proceedings] may be disclosed." United States v. Jackson, 363 Fed.Appx. 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2010). Here, Defendant fails to show any particularized need for the disclosure of grand jury proceedings, let alone a dismissal based upon grand jury abuses by the Government. Defendant claims in a conclusory fashion that the Government withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury; the United States Attorney acted as a fact-witness in the case; coerced and intimidated fact witnesses before the grand jury; used fakes names for witnesses and failed to produce pocket commissions for inspection; and a quorum did not exist prior to a grand jury vote.

  10. United States v. Mosberg

    866 F. Supp. 2d 275 (D.N.J. 2011)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that an indictment sufficiently charged a township attorney as an "agent" pursuant to section 666 because his duties included "preparing reports and providing advice, representing the Planning Board in litigation and mediation, drafting resolutions, and attending meetings and interacting with the Township administration"

    In other words, a defendant seeking access to grand jury proceedings must show “a particularized need before the grand jury [proceedings] may be disclosed.” United States v. Jackson, 363 Fed.Appx. 159, 162 (3d Cir.2010). Here, Mosberg has not demonstrated a particularized need justifying disclosure of the grand jury proceedings.