Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Johnson, 4:14-CR-426. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20180822718 Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER [Resolving Doc. 355 ] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Petitioner Melvin Johnson has moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. 1 On June 18, 2018, Petitioner Johnson moved to unseal the grand jury transcripts leading to his federal indictment in connection with his 2255 petition. 2 The government opposes that motion. 3 There is "a long-established policy that maintains the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts." 4 Federa
More

ORDER

[Resolving Doc. 355]

Petitioner Melvin Johnson has moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 On June 18, 2018, Petitioner Johnson moved to unseal the grand jury transcripts leading to his federal indictment in connection with his § 2255 petition.2 The government opposes that motion.3

There is "a long-established policy that maintains the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts."4 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) reflects this policy of secrecy and gives the limited circumstances in which grand jury materials may be disclosed.5

A party seeking the disclosure of grand jury materials must demonstrate a "particularized need" for them.6 Under this standard, the party requesting grand jury materials has the burden of showing that "(a) the material sought will prevent a possible injustice, (b) the need for disclosure outweighs the need for secrecy, and (c) the request is narrowly tailored to provide only material so needed."7 District courts have substantial discretion in determining whether grand jury transcripts should be disclosed under this standard.8

Petitioner Johnson has not shown that he has a "particularized need" for the grand jury transcripts in this case. His motion merely states that he has filed this action under § 2255 and that he requests the grand jury transcripts be unsealed "for [his] review."9 This statement does not come close to satisfying any of the elements of the particularized need standard.10

The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner Johnson's motion to unseal the grand jury transcripts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Doc. 340.
2. Doc. 355.
3. Doc. 358.
4. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 (1958) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)).
5. See United States v. Sells Eng'g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 425 (1983).
6. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 921 F.2d 83, 86 (6th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dimora, 836 F.Supp.2d 534, 552-53 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (citing Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 228 (1979)).
7. Ernst & Whinney, 921 F.2d at 86 (citing Douglas Oil Co., 441 U.S. at 222-23; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 841 F.2d 1264, 1268 (6th Cir.1988)).
8. Douglas Oil Co., 441 U.S. at 223.
9. Doc. 355 at 1.
10. See Ernst & Whinney, 921 F.2d at 86 (citing Douglas Oil Co., 441 U.S. at 222-23; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 841 F.2d at 1268).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer