- 16 -
States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1411 (9th Cir. 1993)
(quoting United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280
F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960)). Thus, if a document is sought for
its own sake, rather than to learn what took place before the
grand jury, and if its disclosure will not compromise the
integrity of the grand jury process, rule 6(e) does not prohibit
its release. Id. at 1411-1412.
It is also established that, once grand jury material has
been admitted as evidence in a criminal trial, it becomes part of
the public record and thus is not subject to rule 6(e). Sisk v.
Commissioner, 791 F.2d 58, 60 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Special
February, 1975 Grand Jury, 662 F.2d 1232, 1236-1237 n.10 (7th
Cir. 1981), affd. sub nom. United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476
(1983); Bell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 878, 903-904 (1988); see
Gavosto v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-481. To similar effect,
in Green v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-152, affd. without
published opinion 33 F.3d 1378 (5th Cir. 1994), this Court
stated:
Evidence which is presented at a criminal trial is not
protected by the guarantees of secrecy surrounding
grand jury investigations, but rather is a matter of
public record. * * * Consequently, respondent is not
prohibited from using evidence brought before a grand
jury which was subsequently used at petitioner's
criminal trial to determine petitioner's * * * civil
tax liability.
Petitioners allege that respondent obtained exhibit 3 well
before respondent obtained a rule 6(e) order and, in so doing,
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011