James P. Paulk, an investigator for the Albany Georgia District Attorney’s office testified three times before a grand jury. In each instance the grand jury indicted Charles A. Rehberg and in each instance the indictment was dismissed. After the final dismissal Rehberg sued Paulk for violating his civil rights. The Supreme Court upheld Paulk’s claim to absolute immunity for his testimony before the Grand Jury.

The common law has long recognized a broad right of witnesses to immunity. One exception to this is for complaining witnesses. But the Supreme Court found that complaining witnesses (those who initiate the prosecution) are not necessarily the same witnesses who testify and that in most jurisdiction only the prosecutor can initiate charges. Furthermore the court found that there was no difference between law enforcement agents and civilians. It pointed out that law enforcement agents spend much of their time testifying and would be particularly subject to suits which would limit the amount of time they would have to enforce the law. ¹ Finally the court pointed out that grand jury witnesses are similar to Preliminary Examination witnesses who receive immunit.

The Court found no difference between trial witnesses and grand jury witnesses and therefore it ruled that grand jury witnesses should get the same immunity that trial witnesses get. It pointed out that allowing grand jury witnesses to be sued for their testimony could destroy the secrecy of the grand jury and act as an inhibiting force when it come to getting witnesses to testify.

What bothers me is that the immunity given to witnesses allows them to falsify charges and lie before the grand jury without being required to take personal responsibility for their actions. The court says that witnesses who also testify at trial will be subject to cross examination. But that is different from having to making good for the damage they have done. Furthermore, one of the advantages of the Grand Jury is that it screens prosecutions and prevents individuals from the damage to their reputation without some evidence that they have committed a crime. By giving immunity to witnesses the Grand Jury loses this important task.

The grand jury subpoenaed from M.H.

[a]ny and all records required to be maintained pur-
suant to 31 C.F.R. § 103.32 [subsequently relocated
to 31 C.F.R. § 1010.420] relating to foreign financial
accounts that you had/have a financial interest in, or
signature authority over, including records reflecting
the name in which each such account is maintained,
the number or other designation of such account, the
name and address of the foreign bank or other per-
son with whom such account is maintained, the type
of such account, and the maximum value of each
such account during each specified year.

In plain English the grand jury subpoenaed M.H.’s bank foreign bank records which M.H. was required to maintain by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). M.H. argued that the provision of the records or the admission that such records do not exist would incriminate him and he claimed that he was protected from providing such by the Fifth Amendment. The government argued successfully that the documents were excluded from Fifth Amendment protection under the Required Documents Doctrine(RDD). Under the RDD documents are exempt from the Fifth Amendment if “(1) the purpose of the government’s inquiry is regulatory, not criminal; (2) the information requested is contained in documents of a kind the regulated party customarily keeps; and (3) the records have public aspects.”

The Court found that the documents subpoenaed under the BSA met the requirements of the RDD for exclusion from the Fifth Amendment requirements. First, as long as the BSA has a regulatory purpose, even though it can also have a criminal purpose, it meets the first criteria of the RDD. Second, most people keep some records regarding their bank accounts. It matters not that the bank also keeps records. Third, while the mere fact that the law requires such records to be kept does not mean that it has a public aspect, that together with the regulatory nature of the act indicates a public purpose.

But who do they think they are fooling. The government admits that the purpose of the grand jury investigation is to determine if M.H. is using the foreign account to avoid paying income tax, which is a crime. Furthermore I suspect that most investigations under the BSA are primarily criminal in nature. The material they are requesting may not be direct evidence of a crime but it certainly helps the government make a criminal case.

Share/Save

The indictment alleged that the obstruction was committed by evasive answers before the Grand Jury. Bond’s legal team has asked Judge Illston to throw out the conviction. Certainly a conviction for being evasive is a lot weaker without any convictions for perjury. The perjury allegations were that Bonds lied before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was investigating BALCO for allegedly providing steroids to sports figures including Bonds. ¹

If Illston does not throw out the conviction there is sure to be an appeal. One question on appeal will probably be the question of whether charging evasive answers meets the preciseness required by due process. Due process requires that charges in a criminal indictment be precise enough to allow a defendant to fight the case and to allow a future court to determine the nature of the charges in order to prevent double jeopardy. The term evasiveness is so vague that it may not meet due process requirements.

Another problem, and this one may face Judge Illston in determining whether to void the conviction, is that the obstruction count charged not only that Bonds was evasive before the jury but that he lied to the jury. Since the jury hung on the perjury charges it is difficult to see how they can convict him on the obstruction count.

In any case its not over until its over and that will be no time soon.

Share/Save

The District Court dismissed Atherton’s suits after ruling inter alia that Bailey-Jones and Zachem were entitled to absolute immunity. The D. C. Circuit ruled that neither Bailey Jones or Zachem had absolute immunity. Absolute immunity only applies to officials when they are acting in judicial or advocacy roles. Both Bailey-Jones and Zachem were carrying out administrative duties and therefore were only entitled to limited immunity. Therefore the Circuit Court revived Altherton’s suit at least until the Supreme Court decides on the writ of certiorari.

Share/Save