02-1315 U.S. v. Campbell

Listen to this article

“Campbell’s motion did not request any relief from his criminal conviction or sentence-his motion requested only disclosure of what took place before the grand jury that indicted him. It was not an attack on the fact or duration of his confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (‘the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody’); cf. Johnson v. United States, 196 F.3d 802, 805 (7th Cir. 1999) (filings in the first collateral attack may be treated as ‘second or successive’ petitions when the first has been fully adjudicated, a final judgment has been entered, and the prisoner advances new theories of relief). Although the government is correct that Campbell may well intend to use the grand jury disclosure in support of his collateral attacks, the request itself does not seek relief from his conviction or sentence.

“Second, there exists a jurisdictional basis for requesting disclosure of grand jury matters. Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i)(I) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that matters occurring before the grand jury may be disclosed ‘when so directed by a court preliminarily or in connection with a judicial proceeding.’ The rule allows motions for disclosure of grand jury matters after the conclusion of criminal proceedings to be filed in the district court where the grand jury convened-although disclosure is available only where the material is related directly to identifiable litigation, pending or anticipated, and the party requesting the information demonstrates a compelling need for the material. See United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476, 480 n.4 (1983); Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., 460 U.S. 557, 564-67 & n.9 (1983); Douglas Oil Company of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222-25 (1979); Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 870 (1966); United States v. Puglia, 8 F.3d 478, 480 (7th Cir. 1993). Orders denying motions for disclosure under Rule 6(e) are appealable as final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”

Remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Per Curiam.