From: drlmccoymd@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Michael wrote:   
   > https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/498/292/    
   >    
   > The grand jury occupies a unique role in our criminal justice system. It is   
   an investigatory body charged with the responsibility of determining whether   
   or not a crime has been committed. Unlike this Court, whose jurisdiction is   
   predicated on a    
   specific case or controversy, the grand jury "can investigate merely on   
   suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants   
   assurance that it is not." United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S. 632,   
   338 U. S. 642-643 (1950). The    
   function of the grand jury is to inquire into all information that might   
   possibly bear on its investigation until it has identified an offense or has   
   satisfied itself that none has occurred. As a necessary consequence of its   
   investigatory function, the    
   grand jury paints with a broad brush.    
   >    
   > "A grand jury investigation 'is not fully carried out until every available   
   clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find   
   if a crime has been committed.'"    
   >    
   > In short, the Government cannot be required to justify the issuance of a   
   grand jury subpoena by presenting evidence sufficient to establish probable   
   cause, because the very purpose of requesting the information is to ascertain   
   whether probable cause    
   exists    
   >    
   > This Court has emphasized on numerous occasions that many of the rules and   
   restrictions that apply at a trial do not apply in grand jury proceedings.   
   This is especially true of evidentiary restrictions. The same rules that, in   
   an adversary hearing on    
   the merits, may increase the likelihood of accurate determinations of guilt or   
   innocence do not necessarily advance the mission of a grand jury, whose task   
   is to conduct an ex parte investigation to determine whether or not there is   
   probable cause to    
   prosecute a particular defendant.    
   >    
   > Requiring the Government to explain in too much detail the particular   
   reasons underlying a subpoena threatens to compromise "the indispensable   
   secrecy of grand jury proceedings." United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503,   
   319 U. S. 513 (1943).    
   >    
   > The investigatory powers of the grand jury are nevertheless not unlimited.   
   See Branzburg, supra, 408 U.S. at 408 U. S. 688; Calandra, supra, 414 U.S. at   
   414 U. S. 346, and n. 4. Grand juries are not licensed to engage in arbitrary   
   fishing expeditions,    
   nor may they select targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to   
   harass.    
      
      
   Justice STEVENS, with whom Justices MARSHALL and BLACKMUN join, concurring in   
   part and concurring in the judgment.   
   Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) authorizes a Federal District Court   
   to quash or modify a grand jury subpoena duces tecum "if compliance would be   
   unreasonable or oppressive." See United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 414   
   U. S. 346, n. 4 (1974)   
   . This rule requires the district court to balance the burden of compliance   
      
      
   >    
   > Our task is to fashion an appropriate standard of reasonableness, one that   
   gives due weight to the difficult position of subpoena recipients but does not   
   impair the strong governmental interests in affording grand juries wide   
   latitude, avoiding    
   minitrials on peripheral matters, and preserving a necessary level of secrecy    
   >    
   > We begin by reiterating that the law presumes, absent a strong showing to   
   the contrary, that a grand jury acts within the legitimate scope of its   
   authority.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)