BRACY ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court denied the application for a stay of judgment pending disposition of the petition for certiorari.
Applicants were convicted of narcotics offenses, and their convictions were affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. They sought a stay of the Court of Appeals'…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mooney V. Holohan cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
Circuit Justice.
Applicants were convicted of several related narcotics offenses in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed their convictions, and denied their petition for rehearing on February 28, 1978. That court granted their request for a stay of its mandate only pending consideration of their petition for rehearing, and not pending their petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals denied rehearing and issued its mandate, and applicants now request that I stay the enforcement of the judgment of the Court of Appeals pending disposition of that petition for certiorari here.
The chief contention raised by applicants in their petition for certiorari is that a witness committed perjury before the grand jury which indicted them. The witness admitted his perjury at trial, and applicants moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that the prosecutor should have immediately informed the defense and the court when he became aware of the perjury. The District Court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on its opinion in United States v. Basurto, 497 F. 2d 781, 785-786 (1974), which held that perjury by a witness would invalidate an indictment only when his testimony was material.
Applicants rely upon such cases as Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103 (1935), in support of their contention that the disclosure of the perjury required the court to declare a mistrial on its own motion. Pet. for Cert. 10. In that case, this Court first held that the knowing introduction of perjured testimony at a criminal trial rendered the resulting conviction constitutionally invalid. Later cases have held that the prosecutor has a duty to correct testimony he knows to be false, even if its introduction was not knowing and intentional. Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959). Applicants suggest that the prosecutor has a similar duty with regard to testimony introduced in grand jury proceedings which is later shown to have been false.
Because it seems to me that applicants misconceive the function of the grand jury in our system of criminal justice, I cannot conclude that four Justices of this Court are likely to vote to grant their petition. The grand jury does not sit to determine the truth of the charges brought against a defendant, but only to determine whether there is probable cause to believe them true, so as to require him to stand trial. Because of this limited function, we have held that an indictment is not invalidated by the grand jury's consideration of hearsay, Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359 (1956), or by the introduction of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 (1974). While the presentation of inadmissible evidence at trial may pose a substantial threat to the integrity of that factfinding process, its introduction before the grand jury poses no such threat. I have no reason to believe this Court will not continue to abide by the language of Mr. Justice Black in Costello, supra, at 363: “An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. The Fifth Amendment requires nothing more.”
The application is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Adamo, 742 F.2d 927 (6th Cir. 1984)…turned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. The Fifth Amendment requires nothing more.’ Bracy v. United States, 435 U.S. 1301, 1302-03, 98 S.Ct. 1171, 1172, 55 L.Ed.2d 489 (Opinion in Chambers 1978). As predicted, the petition for certiorari was denied, 439 U.S. 818, 99 S.Ct. 79, 58 L.Ed.2d 109 (1978). . The majority in Basurto held that the prosecutor has a duty of good…
-
United States v. Cederquist, 641 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1981)…of a grand jury is to evaluate the law and facts presented to them and determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the charges brought against the defendant are true, such that the defendant should stand trial. Bracy v. United States, 435 U.S. 1301, 1302, 98 S.Ct. 1171, 1172, 55 L.Ed.2d 489 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, 1978). “An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for a trial…
-
United States v. Leverage Funding Sys., Inc., 637 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1980)…the function of the grand jury to determine whether the evidence presented in a specific case is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that a specific individual committed the crime. Bracy v. United States, 435 U.S. 1301, 1302, 98 S.Ct. 1171, 1172, 55 L.Ed.2d 489 (1978); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 362, 76 S.Ct. 406, 408, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). The grand jury is not to weigh evidence to determine guilt or innocence. United States v. Salsedo, 607 F. 2d 31…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1974)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1935)
- Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1956)
- United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1974)