« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
stay of delivery of requested Grand Jury materials (or any further attempt by the Committee to seek the Grand Jury materials from any other available source) until the court could consider the matter at a hearing called for that purpose and rule thereon. On August 11, 1983, the United States District Judges then on active duty in the Southern District of Florida recused themselves from consideration of any matters arising out of the Grand Jury investigation or subsequent indictment of Judge Hastings.
On May 21, 1985, the United States District Judges of this district then on active duty, again considered the issue of recusal in litigation wherein Judge Hastings was a party and recused themselves.
A poll of all judges to whom this case would be assigned because of such recusal, who have joined the court as District Judges since May 21, 1985, has resulted in notification to the undersigned Chief Judge that they would recuse themselves if this matter were assigned to them. These recusals are based upon the
same reasons set forth by the judges on active duty in the earlier orders entered by the court.
Accordingly, the undersigned, as Chief Judge of the court, does hereby petition the Honorable Paul H. Roney, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, to certify to the Advisory Committee on Intercircuit Assignments the need for a judge to be assigned to this district to decide the matters herein presented by the application of the
Circuit, to certify to the Advisory Committee on Intercircuit Assignments the need for a judge to be assigned to this district to decide the matters herein presented by the application of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Congress, and a designation by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for such
DONE and ORDERED in the United States Courthouse, Federal Courthouse Square, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, this 14th day of August 1987.
Chief Judge Paul H. Roney
JAMES LAURENDE KING
JAMES LAWRENCE KING CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT DGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Alan I. Baron, Special Counsel
Terence J. Anderson, Counsel to Judge Hastings
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
On Appeal from the
United States District Court
MEMORANDUM OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE
United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings has moved this Court to stay the August 5, 1987 and September 21, 1987 Orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida which make available to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives ("the Committee") copies of all records, minutes, transcripts, and exhibits of the Grand Jury which indicted Judge Hastings, for use in connection with the Committee's impeachment inquiry concerning Judge Hastings.
The propriety of the Committee's request for access to the grand jury materials was recognized by the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Florida, who granted the original August 5,
1987 disclosure order, and by Senior Circuit Judge John D.
Butzner, Jr. of the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation in the Southern District to hear Judge Hastings' Emergency Motion to Stay the August 5 Order following the recusal of the judges of the Southern District. In his Order of September 21, 1987 Judge Butzner upheld the disclosure order in all respects, but granted Judge Hastings a 21-day interim stay, solely to permit Judge Hastings to move this Court pursuant to Fed.R.App. P. 8 to stay the disclosure orders pending appeal. Judge Hastings has now moved to extend the stay pending disposition of his appeal.
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
In the Eleventh Circuit, an applicant for a stay must make a four-fold showing in order to prevail. First, he must show likelihood of success on appeal. Second, he must show irreparable injury. Third, the applicant must show that the appellee would suffer no substantial harm. Finally, he must show that the public interest favors the grant of a stay. If the applicant fails to establish any of these factors, a stay must be denied. Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 781 F.2d 1450 (11th Cir. 1986); see also the leading case of Virginia Petroleum Jobber's Ass'n. v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925, 104 U.S. App. D.C.106 (1958). Judge Hastings has fallen far short of the "extraordinarily high standard" applied in this Circuit for the grant of this "exceptional" relief, Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 781 F.2d at 1453. Accordingly, his motion should be denied.
Judge Hastings' likelihood of success on appeal is minimal at best. As Judge Butzner's opinion demonstrates, the Committee's position is supported by three well-settled legal principles. First, the House of Representatives possesses inherent authority to obtain grand jury materials under both its sole power of impeachment and the Speech or Debate Clause; second, Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(C)(i), which authorizes disclosure of grand jury materials "preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding," applies to an impeachment inquiry; and third, it is settled law in the Eleventh Circuit that the district court has the discretion under its inherent supervisory authority to make available to the Committee those parts of the grand jury record for which a need is demonstrated. See In re Petition to Inspect and Copy Grand Jury Materials, 735 F.2d 1261 (11th Cir.), cert. denied 469 U.S. 884 (1984).
The District Court exercised its discretion properly by finding that the Committee's need to review the grand jury materials, pursuant to its constitutional responsibility to conduct an impeachment inquiry, far outweighed any minimal interest Judge Hastings may have in the continuing secrecy of the records of a grand jury which concluded its investigation six years ago. Indeed, Judge Butzner's balancing of these competing interests accords with the findings of this Court in In re Petition to Inspect. This Court's previous conclusion should control here, since the need for disclosure of grand jury materials in an actual impeachment proceeding is presumptively