IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 87-5857

In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
OF GRAND JURY NO. 81-1 (MIA)

United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings, Appellant Committee on the Judiciary of the

United States House of Representatives, Appellee

On Appeal from the

United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida

BRIEF OF APPELLEE

Alan I. Baron
Special Counsel

Janice E. Cooper

Robert B. Levin

Patricia Wynn

Assistant Special Counsel

M. Elaine Mielke

General Counsel

United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary

Room 2137

Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

(202) 226-3444

Attorneys for Appellee

Committee on the Judiciary

II.

THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD
THAT THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
WHEN CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION
PERTAINING TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF A
CIVIL OFFICER, IS ENTITLED, PURSUANT
TO THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TO OBTAIN
THE RECORD OF A GRAND JURY WHICH
INDICTED THAT OFFICER....

THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT
THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, WHEN
CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION PERTAINING
TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF A CIVIL OFFICER,
IS ENTITLED, PURSUANT TO FED.R.CRIM.P.
6(e)(3)(C)(i), TO OBTAIN THE RECORD OF THE
GRAND JURY WHICH INDICTED THAT OFFICER...

III. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT
THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, WHEN
CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION PERTAINING
TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF A CIVIL OFFICER, IS
ENTITLED, PURSUANT TO THE INHERENT
SUPERVISORY POWER OF THE COURT, TO OBTAIN
THE RECORD OF A GRAND JURY WHICH INDICTED
THAT OFFICER.....

1

2

4

5

7

7

7

11

16

IV.

THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS
DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE NEED OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE MATERIAL OUTWEIGHS THE
INTERESTS ALLEGED BY JUDGE HASTINGS...

A. The Secrecy Interests in this Matter
have been Minimized....

19

19

STATEMENT REGARDING PREFERENCE

These proceedings do not qualify under any of the preference categories set forth in Appendix I to the Eleventh Circuit Rules. Appellee submits, however, that the extraordinary nature of an impeachment inquiry, and considerations of comity between branches of government require that this proceeding be expedited.

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Counsel have been advised that the Court has set the matter

for oral argument on October 28, 1987 and thus no statement in this regard would seem necessary or appropriate.

* Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund 421 U.S. 491 (1975) .

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972)

Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599 (1962)

In re Grand Jury Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. 1209 (M.D. Fla. 1977) .

In re Grand Jury Investigation of Uranium Industry, (D.D.C. Misc. 78-0173, Aug. 16, 1979)

10,11

12,13

19,20,21,23,24

* In re Petition to Inspect and Copy Grand Jury Materials
735 F.2d 1261 (11th Cir.), cert. denied
469 U.S. 884 (1984), aff'g 576 F. Supp. 1275
(S.D. Fla. 1983) . .

passim

* In re Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1987
Grand Jury, 370 F. Supp. 1219 (D.D.C. 1974),
mandamus denied sub nom. Haldeman v. Sirica,
501 F. 2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1974)

9,11,15,17

8,15,16

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S.(13 Otto) 168 (1881)

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 421 (1819)