IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE, COUNTY KANSASDIVISION 12
PROTECTIVE ORDERThe Court has considered the nature and extent of the secrecy which is required in Grand Jury proceedings pursuant to Kansas law. After giving this issue due consideration and after balancing the respective interests which are involved, the Court hereby enters this Protective Order. The purpose of this Order is to protect the Grand Jurors; to protect the integrity and dignity of the Grand Jury proceedings; to protect the witnesses; to protect innocent members of the public and, to protect the public’s right to obtain information which is not required by law to be secret. In Kansas, K.S.A. 22-3012 governs the secrecy of Grand Jury proceedings and the disclosure of information. Other than limited disclosures made to the District Attorney for the use in the performance of his official duties, a juror, attorney, interpreter, reporter or typist who transcribes the recorded testimony is permitted to “disclose matters occurring before the grand jury only when so directed by the court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding or when permitted by the court at the request of the defendant upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury.” (Emphasis added.) Id. Likewise, the Court may “direct that an indictment shall be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has given bail. . . .” Id. The United States Supreme Court has held that “ the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.” Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 (1979). Some of the vital interests which are protected by the requirement of secrecy include: (1) preserving the willingness and candor of witnesses called before the Grand Jury; (2) not alerting the target of an investigation who might otherwise flee, intimidate witnesses and/or harass the Grand Jurors; and, (3) preserving the rights of a citizen who is exonerated by the grand jury. 441 U.S. at 219. Thus, in order to protect the integrity of the grand jury system, courts “have consistently stood ready to defend [grand jury secrecy] against unwarranted intrusion. In the absence of a clear indication in a statute . . . [the Court] must always be reluctant to conclude that a breach of secrecy has been authorized.” United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 425 (1983) (citing Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., 460 U.S. 557, 572-573 (1983)). “Despite the fact that news gathering may be hampered, the press is regularly excluded from grand jury proceedings.” Brangburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 684-685 (1972). Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has went so far as to describe Grand Jury secrecy as “indispensable” to the administration of justice. United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503, 513 (1943). Thus, it is clear that the Grand Jury occupies “a high place as an instrument of justice in our system of criminal law - so much so that it is enshrined in the Constitution.” Sells, 463 U.S. at 418(1983) (Citing Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 399 (1959) and Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956).) THEREFORE, in light of this historical legal background, the Court hereby enters the following orders:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Entered on this _______ day of June, 2006, by
_________________________
David E. Bruns
Presiding Judge
|