- 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 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011