- 8 -
of grand jury secrecy (the grand jury secrecy motion). By order
dated October 19, 1994, we denied the grand jury secrecy motion,
finding such motion premature in that issues concerning grand
jury secrecy had been raised by the petitioning partners and
certain others in an action brought in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.2
On October 19, 1994, we continued the trial of this case
until September 11, 1995.
On March 24, 1995, the petitioning partners moved for
dismissal or alternative relief based on respondent's misconduct
(the 1995 misconduct motion). Respondent objected.
2 See Ballas v. United States (In re Grand Jury
Proceedings), 62 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 1995). In Ballas, the
petitioning partners appealed the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California’s order denying their petition for
disclosure of certain grand jury investigative materials prepared
by the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service
during their investigation of the promoters of certain AMCOR-
sponsored partnerships (which, we assume, included the
partnership). See id. at 1177 (referring to “the promoters of an
abusive tax shelter called AMCOR”). In Ballas, the petitioning
partners requested that the Department of Justice investigate
certain breaches of grand jury secrecy and that the petitioning
partners be given a copy of any resulting report and certain
related grand jury materials. The District Court found that only
isolated and technical instances of improper disclosure had
occurred and denied the petitioning partners’ requests for
relief. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
District Court’s action on the basis, in part, that the
petitioning partners “were not targets of, witnesses before, or
otherwise involved in the grand jury proceeding.” Id. at
1177–1180.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011