In Re: Grand Jury

Opinion

Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

5-11-2006

In Re: Grand Jury Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-2936

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

Recommended Citation "In Re: Grand Jury " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1123. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1123

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 05-2936

IN RE: GRAND JURY

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA D.C. Misc. 05-mc-00197 District Judge: The Honorable Robert F. Kelly

Argued: March 29, 2006

Before: McKEE, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: May 11, 2006)

C. Clark Hodgson, Jr., Esq. (Argued) Jonathan F. Bloom, Esq. Thomas W. Dymek, Esq. Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young 2600 One Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 -AND- Sal Cognetti, Jr., Esq. Foley, Cognetti, Comeford, Cimini & Cummins 507 Linden Street 700 Scranton Electric Building Scranton, PA 18503

Counsel for Appellant John J. Pease, III, Esq. (Argued) Office of the United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106

Counsel for Appellee

OPINION OF THE COURT

BARRY, Circuit Judge

As initially presented, the principal issue before us on this appeal was whether we

should now create the qualified state legislative immunity privilege we have heretofore

“refus[ed] to create,” In re Grand Jury (Granite), 821 F.2d 946, 956 (3d Cir. 1987). At

oral argument, however, it was made clear by appellant that the “principal” issue was, in

fact, the issue on which it seeks to prevail.

We have carefully considered the written submissions of the parties and the oral

arguments they so forcefully presented. We see no reason to revisit Granite and

conclude, without further discussion, that essentially for the reasons set forth by the

District Court, its orders of May 11, 2005 and June 1, 2005 will be affirmed.