Grand Jury v.
This text of Grand Jury v. (Grand Jury v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 98-1463
IN RE: GRAND JURY,
Petitioner.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
William J. Murphy on brief for petitioner. Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, Emily R. Schulman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Patrick M. Hamilton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
May 26, 1998
Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we conclude that, even if the district court might better have allowed the witness some additional notice or preparation time before the contempt hearing, any such procedural deficiency was harmless error. The witness now asserts that, given the opportunity, she would claim that her refusal to testify is justified by a suspicion of illegal electronic surveillance. In response, the government has presented affidavits sufficient to deny that the grand jury inquiry was based on any such illegal activity. SeeIn re Tse, 748 F.2d 722, 727-28 (1st Cir. 1984); In re Quinn, 525 F.2d 222, 225 (1st Cir. 1975). Therefore, we conclude that further proceedings to explore such a claim would be futile. In spite of the witness's request, we do not have authority in these circumstances to direct the location or conditions of her confinement. Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Grand Jury v., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grand-jury-v-ca1-1998.