United States v. Minerd, 299 Fed.Appx. 110, 111 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The party must also show that “a defense would be greatly prejudiced or that without reference to it an injustice would be done.”
District courts are not authorized to dismiss indictments on the basis that the Government may have failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. United States v. Minerd, 299 F. App'x 110, 112 n.1 (3d Cir. 2008); United States v. Jones, No. 10-307, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3248, at *7-10 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2012) (declining to dismiss indictment and explaining rationale for rule that the Government is under no obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury); United States v. Dynkowski, 720 F. Supp. 2d 475, 479 (D. Del. 2010) (rejecting motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the Government failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the grand jury). Accordingly, Defendants' assertion that the Government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct for failing to apprise the grand jury of the scope of computer usage at the charter schools is not sufficient to establish a particularized need under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii).
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S. Ct. 983, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077 (1958); see also In re Grand Jury Matter, 682 F.2d 61, 64 (3d Cir. 1982). In United States v. Minerd, 299 F. App'x 110 (3d Cir. 2008), a defendant requested grand jury transcripts on the grounds that they were necessary to prove that the government committed fraud before the grand jury. The Third Circuit upheld the district court's decision to deny the defendant's motion, determining that the "vague allegation" did not constitute a particularized need where nothing in the record showed a basis for dismissal of the indictment.
United States v. Minerd, 299 Fed.Appx. 110, 111 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The party must also show that “a defense would be greatly prejudiced or that without reference to it an injustice would be done.”
.See United States v. Minerd, 299 F. App'x 110 (3d Cir. 2008) (providing additional facts).See Minerd, 112 F. App'x at 845.
The defendant “must show a particularized need for that information which outweighs the public interest in secrecy.” U.S. v. Minerd, 299 Fed.Appx. 110, 111 (3d Cir. 2008). The defendant may thus obtain “pre-trial discovery of the testimony of a witness when it relates to the dismissal of the indictment.” U.S. v. Budzanoski, 462 F.2d 443, 454 (3d Cir. 1972).
A “vague allegation” of wrongdoing does not constitute a particularized need. United States v. Minerd, 299 Fed. App'x 110,111-12 (3d Cir. 2008). See also United States v. Donahue, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96613, *7 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 12, 2012)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena. 103 F.3d 234. 239 (2d Cir. 1996). "Vague allegation[s], however, [do] not demonstrate a particularized need for disclosure." United States v. Minerd. 299 Fed.Appx. 110. 111 (3d Cir. 2008); see also Nguyen. 314 F.Supp.2d at 616 (noting that the party seeking disclosure cannot satisfy its burden with "conclusory or speculative allegations of misconduct").
504 U.S. 36, 51 (1992) (“[R]equiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory to an adjudicatory body.”); see also United States v. Minerd, 299 Fed.Appx. 110, 112 n.1 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[T]o the extent that [the defendant] alleged that the government failed to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, an indictment may not be dismissed on these grounds”); United States v. Slade, 2013 WL 3344341, at*3 (E.D. Pa. July 3, 2013) (“District courts are not authorized to dismiss indictments on the basis that the Government may have failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.”)
A “vague allegation" of wrongdoing does not constitute a particularized need. United States v. Minerd, 299 Fed. App'x 110, 111-12 (3d Cir. 2008). See also United States v. Donahue, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96613, *7 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 12, 2012) (“[A] conclusory allegation alone . . . does not demonstrate a particularized need for disclosure.”