Juris Prudence 38a

GRAND JURIES
38A C.J.S.
There cannot be a grand jury de facto when there is a grand jury de jure.61 It has been held that the de facto officer doctrine applies to an improperly appointed grand juror.62
§ 10.
§ 8. - - Grand Juries for Special Terms
Subject to statutory limitations, if any, a court authorized to hold a special term has power to convene a grand jury for such term. Library References Grand Jury e;.1.
Improper Purpose
A court authorized to hold a special term has power to convene a grand jury for such term 53 under express statutory authority 54 or in the ab7 sence of a statutory limitation.55 However, the court is bound by any statutory limitation on its power to call a grand jury to serve at a special term.56
§ 9.
It is improper to use grand jury proceedings merely to elicit evidence for use in a civil case or to prepare a pending indictment for trial.
Research Note Improper purpose for subpoena is treated infra § 137. Library References Grand Jury e;.1, 24-26.
De Facto Grand Jury or Juror
Authorities differ as to whether there can be a de facto grand jury. Library References Grand Jury e;.1.
There is no such thing as a de facto grand jury in a federal court.57 Likewise, some state courts assert that there is no such thing as a de facto grand jury;58 but other state courts take a view to the contrary.59 It has been held that the acts of a de facto grand jury are valid in the absence of fraud or prejudice.60
53. N.J.-State v. Bolitho, 136 A 164, 103 N.J.Law 246, affirmed 146 A 927, 104 N.J.Law 446-State v. McDevitt, 87 A 123, 84 N.J.Law 11, affirmed 90 A ']j1,7, 85 NJ.Law 731. 54. Ky.-Sowders v. Commonwealth, 248 S.W. 187, 197 Ky. 834. Tex.-Lennon v. State, 26 S.W.2d 227, 114 Tex.Cr. 5OD-Hickox v. State, 253 S.W. 823, 95 Tex.Cr. 173. 55. Cal.-People v. Carabin, 14 C. 438. 56. Tex.-Terrell v. State, 139 S.W.2d 108, 139 Tex.Cr. 130. 57. U.S.-U.S. v. McKay, D.C.Micb., 45 F.Supp. 1007. 58. Tenn.-Roberts v. State, 247 S.W. 101, 147 Tenn. 323. 59. A1aska-State v. Roark, App., 705 P.2d 1274. Cal.-Ex parte Haymond, 27 P. 859, 91 C. 545-1n re Gannon, 11 P. 240, 69 C. 541. N.Y.-People v. Petrea, 92 N.Y. 1']j1,. Wis.-State v. Wescott, 217 N.W. ']j1,3, 194 Wis. 410. 60. Tenn.-State v. McFarland, Cr.App., 638 S.W.2d 416. 61. IlL-People v. Brautigan, 142 N.E. 208, 310 ill. 472. 62. A1aska-State v. Roark, App., 705 P.2d 1274. Tex.-Howard v. Stale, App. 9 Dist., 704 S.W.2d 575. 63. :U.S.-U.S. v. Sells Engineering, Inc., Cal., 103 S.Ct. 3133, 463 U.S. 418, 77 LEd.2d 743. Exclusively criminal Grand jury investigation is not conducted in good faith unless it is used to conduct investigations that are in their inception exclusively criminal.
Use of grand jury proceedings merely to elicit evidence for use in a civil case is improper per se.63 Government attorneys may not use a grand jury proceeding to gain advantages in a civil case which they are not entitled to. 64 It is improper to use a grand jury for the primary purpose of strengthening the government's case on a pending indictment or as a substitute for discovery.65 The government may not utilize a grand jury for the sole or primary purpose of gathering evidence for use in a pending trial,66 or of preparing a pending indictment for trial,67 or of securing addjtional, postindictment evidence to be used at trial. 68 However, there appears to be some authority to the contrary.69 Where no further in-
U.S.-Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., CAWis., 687 F.2d 1079, on rehearing 717 F.2d 1136.
64. D.C.-Synanon Church v. U.S., D.C., 579 F.Supp. 967, affirmed
820 F.2d 421, 261 U.S.App.D.C. 13. 65. U.S.-U.S. v. Gibbons, CAOkl., 607 F.2d 1320.
66. U.S.-U.S. v. Phillips, D.C.ill., 577 F.Supp. 879.
67. U.S.-In re Grand Jury Proceedings, CAl(Puerto Rico), 814 F.2d 61-U.S. v. Woods, C.AMich., 544 F.2d 242, certiorari denied Hurt v. U.S., 97 S.Ct. 787, 429 U.S. 1062, 50 L.Ed.2d 778, Blair v. U.S., 97 S.Ct. 1652, two cases, 430 U.S. 969, 52 LEd.2d 361, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1652, 430 U.S. 969, 52 LEd.2d 361, Jackson v. U.S., 97 S.Ct. 2675, 431 U.S. 954, 53 L.Ed.2d 270 and Kilpatrick v. U.S., 97 S.Ct. 2675, 431 U.S. 954, 53 L.Ed.2d 270, rehearing denied 97 S.Ct. 2689, 431 U.S. 960, 53 LEd:2d 279. U.S. v. Raphael, S.D.N.Y., 786 F.Supp. 355, affirmed U.S. v. Alegria, 980 F.2d 830. 68. U.S.-U.S. v. Doss, CATenn., 545 F.2d 548, rehearing 563 F.2d 265. In re Grand Jury Matter No. 86--525-5, E.D.Pa., 689 F.Supp. 454. N.Y.-People v. Heller, 472 N.Y.S.2d 824, 122 Misc.2d 991. 69. Pa.-Commonwealth v. Lang, 537 A2d 1361, 517 Pa 390.
340