Does a post-trial challenge to the swearing-in of a grand jury result in the reversal of a federal indictment?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Booker, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 722, 245 P.3d 366, 51 Cal.4th 141 (Cal. 2011):

Thus, because this is a posttrial challenge to the grand jury proceedings, any irregularity in the proceedings requires reversal

[245 P.3d 384]

only if defendant has

[51 Cal.4th 158]

been prejudiced. Assuming for the sake of argument that the irregularity violated the federal Constitution, defendant is entitled to relief unless the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the irregularity did not affect the outcome of trial. ( Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ( Chapman ).) Under state law, defendant bears the burden of demonstrating any error deprived him of a fair trial. (See Jablonski, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 800, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 98, 126 P.3d 938.)

[245 P.3d 384]

[51 Cal.4th 158]

Here, defendant is not entitled to relief under either standard. As the trial court noted, the evidence presented to the grand jury after the trial court administered the oath was sufficient to support an indictment against defendant. The belated swearing-in of the grand jurors did not have a structural impact on those proceedings, as the grand jury, once properly sworn, received sufficient evidence to support the indictment.8 Contrary to defendant's assertion, the error is susceptible to review for actual prejudice because we can reviewand, indeed, have reviewedthe evidence that was presented to the grand jury after it was sworn. Unlike Vasquez v. Hillery, supra, 474 U.S. 254, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598, where racial animus of the grand jurors may have affected their decision in whether and how to charge the defendant, our review of these grand jury proceedings does not require us to speculate as to the jurors' motives. Consequently, we reject his claim that it is impossible to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support his indictment, and we need not consider his claim that the indictment was based at least partly on evidence received prior to jury being sworn.

Other Questions


Does a post-trial challenge to a federal grand jury's swearing-in require reversal? (California, United States of America)
Does the pendency of a federal action brought by a state against a federal defendant have any bearing in determining whether the federal action is pending? (California, United States of America)
Can a federal judge order in camera review of in camera testimony from a federal grand jury? (California, United States of America)
Can a federal and state prosecutor be found guilty of misconduct in a federal or federal criminal case? (California, United States of America)
Can a reversal of a judgment result in the reversal of the award of attorney fees and costs? (California, United States of America)
Does a cumulative effect of errors resulting in errors requiring reversal require reversal? (California, United States of America)
Is a grand jury's power to report the result of an investigation into sexual assault limited to a charge or indictment? (California, United States of America)
What is the retroactivity of new federal habeas corpus rules in federal federal courts? (California, United States of America)
In a federal civil case, in what circumstances will a federal prosecutor be found to have improperly challenged statements in his closing argument? (California, United States of America)
Is a new federal constitutional rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, like that of the Payne case, to apply retroactively to all cases, state or federal? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.