Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Grumbles

decided: December 20, 1971.

IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA GRUMBLES AND DONALD BRUCE GRUMBLES, APPELLANTS


Biggs, Van Dusen and Hunter, Circuit Judges.

Author: Per Curiam

Opinion OF THE COURT

This appeal arises from judgments of civil contempt entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826 against Patricia Grumbles and Donald Bruce Grumbles by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Patricia Grumbles and Donald Bruce Grumbles appeared on September 24, 1971, before a federal grand jury convened in Camden, New Jersey, but refused to answer any questions beyond a statement of their names and addresses. The principal reasons asserted by the Grumbles for their refusal to answer further questions were that the answers might tend to incriminate them and that the questions were improper and represented the product of illegal electronic surveillance.*fn1 After the Grumbles refused to answer questions before the grand jury, the United States Attorney applied to the district court for a grant of immunity from prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2514.*fn2 An immunity hearing was held in the district court on November 17, 1971.*fn3 At this hearing counsel for the Grumbles argued that the Government had not satisfied its burdens under the terms of the immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2514, and that the Government had not satisfactorily demonstrated that the grand jury questions which the Grumbles had refused to answer were not based upon illegal electronic surveillance. On the latter point, counsel for the Government responded with the following assurance:

"We are prepared to assure your Honor as we have done in the Brief, that neither of these witnesses has [ sic. ] the subject of any electronic surveillance within the knowledge of the United States government, nor have any premises over which they have any proprietary interest been the subject of any electronic surveillance, and they have not been overheard in any way at any time in electronic surveillances, either legal or illegal, within the knowledge of the United States government."*fn4

At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court granted the Government's applications for grants of immunity and ordered both Patricia Grumbles and Donald Bruce Grumbles to answer the questions put to them by the United States Attorney before the grand jury. The Grumbles then decided, after consultation and discussions with their attorney, to waive further appearance before the grand jury and to stipulate that if called to appear before the grand jury they would again refuse to answer the questions asked of them on September 24, 1971, on the grounds stated in the transcript of that proceeding and the additional grounds stated by their attorney in opposition to the Government's application for the grant of immunity.*fn5 As a result of the parties' stipulations, the district court found the Grumbles in contempt of the court's order and ordered each of them committed to the custody of the United States Marshal for the life of the Camden grand jury or until such time as each purges himself or herself of contempt.*fn6 The Grumbles filed a notice of appeal to this court on November 19, 1971.*fn7

On appeal counsel for the Grumbles raises, inter alia, the following issues:

(1) Whether the Government has satisfied the requirements of the immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2514, and specifically whether the record in this appeal establishes that the grand jury proceeding of September 24, 1971, falls within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 2514 in that the questions asked of the Grumbles at this proceeding relate to violations of offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2516, particularly to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 793;*fn8

(2) The possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 2515 to preclude the questioning of the Grumbles before the grand jury without a greater showing by the Government of the absence of illegal government surveillance; and

(3) The right of a witness before a grand jury to have counsel present in the grand jury room during his questioning.

Since 18 U.S.C. § 2514 authorizes the grant of immunity to any witnesses in cases involving any of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2516, appellants contend that the only such offense involved in these applications is possibly 18 U.S.C. § 793. We have been provided by the parties with a transcript of the questions asked the Grumbles at the September 24, 1971, grand jury proceeding. Our review of these questions indicates that the grand jury's investigation does appear to extend to possible violations of 18 U.S.C. § 793, particularly subsection (e), so that the Government's application for a grant of immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 2514 was properly granted by the district court. See Marcus v. United States, 310 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 944, 83 S. Ct. 933, 9 L. Ed. 2d 969 (1963). Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by the Grumbles' argument that even if the grant of immunity is upheld, the district court should be instructed to amend its immunity order to require the Grumbles to answer only questions related to 18 U.S.C. § 793. Once the Grumbles are granted immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2514, they obtain full immunity as to everything arising out of that inquiry, including acts which might constitute a violation of other statutes under investigation. As stated in Marcus, supra (310 F.2d at 146-147), "The immunity is as extensive as the testimony."*fn9 In Re Grand Jury Investigation of Giancana, 352 F.2d 921 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 959, 86 S. Ct. 437, 15 L. Ed. 2d 362 (1965).

Counsel for the Grumbles has also argued that the Government has not made a sufficient showing that the questioning of the Grumbles by the grand jury is not the product of electronic surveillance proscribed by the Constitution and 18 U.S.C. § 2515. As indicated above, counsel for the Government assured the district court that neither of the Grumbles nor any premises over which they have any proprietary interest has been the subject of any electronic surveillance at all, legal or illegal, and this assurance has been restated in affidavit form.*fn10 The Grumbles have not presented any evidence demonstrating that these representations by the Government are false, and this contention is rejected. In Re Idella Marx, 451 F.2d 466 (1st Cir., 1971); Russo v. United States, 404 U.S. 1209, 92 S. Ct. 4, 30 L. Ed. 2d 13 (1971) (Douglas, J., sitting as Circuit Justice).*fn11 See United States v. Egan, 450 F.2d 199 (3d Cir., 1971), cert. granted, 404 U.S. 990, 92 S. Ct. 531, 30 L. Ed. 2d 541 (1971).

Finally, the Grumbles argue that the Sixth Amendment dictates that they have the right to have their counsel present in the grand jury room during questioning. We find this claim to be without merit. See Rule 6(d), F.R.Crim.P.; In Re Groban, 352 U.S. 330, 333, 77 S. Ct. 510, 513, 1 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1957), where the Court said: "A witness before a grand jury cannot insist, as a matter of constitutional right, on being represented by his counsel. . . ." See also Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 523-524 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 960, 90 S. Ct. 434, 24 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1969); United States v. Corallo, 413 F.2d 1306, 1330 (2d Cir. 1969).

We have considered and reject the other contentions of appellants.

The November 17, 1971, orders committing appellants to federal custody until they purge themselves of the contempt for failure to answer grand jury questions ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.