Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 22, 1990 TAG: 9003222656
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A/5 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: TALLAHASSEE, FLA. LENGTH: Medium
"It's another chink in the armor of the grand jury," said Buddy Jacobs, head of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association. "We feel like the system's worked well enough to last 800 years."
But Mike Smith, the former news reporter who brought down Florida's law barring disclosure of grand jury testimony, said Wednesday's unanimous ruling will prevent prosecutors from abusing the system.
"The grand jury itself is kind of an inquisition process," Smith said. "If witnesses aren't allowed to say what they did or heard in there, then you not only have an inquisition but an inquisition operating in the dark."
The Supreme Court upheld an appeals court decision striking down a law that prohibited grand jury witnesses from ever revealing their testimony after the case ends. Fifteen other states have similar laws.
The ruling does not affect laws barring witnesses from revealing the testimony while the grand jury investigation is in progress.
"The court did limit its ruling, and we're pleased with that," Jacobs said. "They could have ruled that the testimony could be made public during the investigation."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the court, said the state failed to prove that prosecutors' interests in secrecy were enough to overcome a reporter's First Amendment rights.
"The potential for abuse of the Florida prohibition, through its employment as a device to silence those who know of unlawful conduct or irregularities on the part of public officials, is apparent," Rehnquist wrote.
Smith, now a National Guard sergeant at Fort Indiantown Gap in Annville, Pa., was a reporter for the Charlotte Herald-News in 1986 when a grand jury in Charlotte County called him to testify about stories he wrote alleging corruption in the sheriff's and state attorneys' offices.
In a telephone interview Wednesday, Smith said that during his testimony he noticed that prosecutors were directing the jury foreman to take certain actions and controlled whether jurors would hand down any indictments.
"The grand jury was not able to be the sword and the shield of the law it was supposed to be," Smith said.
After the investigation ended and no indictments were returned, Smith wanted to publish a news story and possibly a book about the case but was barred by law.
A federal judge upheld the law when Smith challenged it, but it was struck down by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the state appealed.
George Waas, the assistant attorney general who handled the case, said allowing publication of completed grand jury proceedings by witnesses could harm a future investigation that might occur if more evidence came to light.
"There are instances where grand jury investigations are concluded only to be picked up again years later," Waas said. "It's quite possible that details about what occurred before the jury might compromise the jury's ability to do its job."
Waas also said the Florida law, which had been on the books for 40 years, properly balanced the need for secret testimony and the First Amendment.
But the Supreme Court sided with Smith, who said the ruling reduces the omnipotence of prosecutors in grand jury proceedings.
"The prosecutor basically did whatever he wanted to do. The significance of this case is that he's lost a little bit of that control," Smith said.
by CNB