I am looking for case law, briefs, good advise on the issue of release of GJ testimony or records obtained with Grand Jury subpoena and what constitutes a "particularized need". Thanks.

[This message was edited by Richard Alpert on 05-22-02 at .]

[This message was edited by Richard Alpert on 05-22-02 at .]

Here are a few places to start. Most of these cases refer to Mott and its progeny.

I. Legate v. State, 52 S.W.3d 797 (Tex.App.--San Antonio,2001)

a. Particularized need based upon totality of the circumstances

b. no particularized need when defense claimed that grand jury testimony was of key prosecution witness and that defense sought to discover inconsistencies in testimony;

c. in camera review of transcript by trial court found no exculpatory material

II. Ex Parte Martin, 6 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)

a. Footnote 15 contains a discussion as to the rationales behind grand jury secrecy

III. In re 5 Byrd Enterprises, Inc., 980 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.App.�Beaumont 1998)

a. Civil litigants sought to discover grand jury testimony for the purpose of determining whether there are inconsistencies in testimony, for possible impeachment, to allow a witness to refresh his recollection and to test the witness� credibility. The Appeals Court ruled that the trial judge abused his discretion by ordering the production of grand jury transcripts because the stated reasons did not reach the particularized need requirement of the statute.

IV. Stern vs. State ex rel Ansel, 869 S.W.2d 614 (Tex.App.�Houston [14 Dist.] 1999)

a. District Attorney being removed from office sought to introduce grand jury testimony of a witness to demonstrate that he had not asked demeaning questions of her and to show that she voluntarily waived her 5th Amendment rights. The Court refused stating that, even if he had preserved the error at trial, the articulated reasons fail to show a particularized needs as required by statute.

V. Villegas vs. State, 791 S.W.2d 226 (Tex.App.�Corpus Christi 1990)

a. If the prosecutor uses any grand jury testimony during trial, the defense is entitled to inspect and use such testimony that covers the same subject involved in the portions used and introduced by the prosecution

b. Defendant claimed error because the court refused to order prosecution to turn over witness statement used in Grand Jury. The Court noted that counsel for defense was shown the witness statements used in grand jury and refused to separate the right of the defendant to view the statements from the fact his counsel was allowed to inspect the documents.

VI. Euresti v. Valdez, 769 S.W.2d 575 (Tex.App.�Corpus Christi 1989)

a. Civil suit in which Plaintiff claims malicious prosecution and that several persons had given false testimony to grand jury for purpose of getting the Plaintiff indicted.

b. Plaintiff said had particularized need because: (1) time has elapsed between the present trial and the date on which the indictment was filed; (2) the witnesses' testimony is material to his case and necessary for complete discovery; (3) the credibility of the testimony given to the grand jury is in serious doubt; (4) that a second grand jury no-billed the Plaintiff; (5) the indicting grand jury�s foreman leaked information to the media and made several public statements about Plaintiff and the testimony before the grand jury.

c. The Court found particularized need and ordered the transcripts and documents produced.

Hope this give you a starting point.

Robert DuBoise

Robert, I just had to ask: Did you already have all these cases available and condensed, or did you do it just for this question? It's amazing what you can learn at "The Forum"

I ran a quick Westlaw search last night and then cut and pasted the information in. I had the question come up in a case a while back and so was familiar with the subject matter, and got curious as to whether or not the law had changed in the past two years.

Robert DuBoise