United States District Court, Southern District of New York
July 28, 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JERRY WALDEN, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis Kaplan, District Judge
By letter dated July 21, 2003, defendant asks for clarification of an order of May 26, 2003, which denied his prior application for the names of the grand jurors who indicted him, and then goes on to request again a copy of the Court's jury plan.
On or about March 26, 2003, defendant filed separate motions for production of the names of the grand jurors [docket item 135] and of the jury plan [docket item 134].
The Court denied the motion for disclosure of the names of the grand jurors by order, dated May 29, 2003, endorsed on the motion. The endorsement stated:
"Denied. The identities of grand jurors are `matters
occurring before the grand jury' under Fed.R.Cr.P.
6(e). E.g., In re Motions of Dow Jones & Co.,
142 F.3d 496, 499 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Movant has failed to
show particularized need for disclosure." [docket
item 134 (endorsement)]
It denied the other motion by endorsement which stated also that "[m]ovant may request the plan from the Pro Se Office." [docket item 135]
Defendant then moved for clarification of the order with respect to the jury plan. The Court denied that motion too, but directed the Pro Se Office to send him a copy of the plan. [docket item 139]
In view of the latest order, the only question even arguably remaining is defendant's desire for disclosure of the grand jurors' names. His latest application says that he "can't understand why [the Court] denied [his] motion." The prior endorsement [docket item 134] was quite explicit. In lay terms, it comes down to this: The names of grand jurors are secret. They can be disclosed only upon a showing of particularized need. Defendant has made no such showing. And while the Court recognizes that he is proceeding pro se, it is not the Court's function to prepare a treatise on what circumstances have been found to constitute particularized need and then in effect to act as defendant's advocate in attempting to formulate an argument for the disclosure that defendant seeks.
The latest application is denied.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.