In the Matter of the Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Roland Lerner, 46 N.Y.2d 335 (1978)
A grand jury subpoena duces tecum may not be used solely or dominantly to prepare a pending indictment for trial, but can be used for investigations into other offenses, even if evidence gathered may be used in the pending trial.
Summary
Roland Lerner, a partner in a nursing home, was served with a grand jury subpoena duces tecum. He moved to quash it, arguing it was overly broad and violated his self-incrimination privilege. After being indicted on related charges, he renewed his motion, claiming the subpoena’s dominant purpose was trial preparation. The Special Prosecutor asserted the subpoena targeted other criminal activities. The court denied Lerner’s motion after an in camera hearing. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the subpoena was valid as it targeted offenses beyond the pending indictment, and the court was justified in relying on the Special Prosecutor’s representations without inspecting grand jury minutes.
Facts
Roland Lerner, a partner in Park View Nursing Home, received a grand jury subpoena demanding the home’s business records from 1970 onward.
Lerner initially moved to quash the subpoena, alleging it was overly broad and violated his privilege against self-incrimination.
Subsequently, Lerner was indicted on 25 counts related to a kickback scheme.
Lerner then renewed his motion to quash, arguing the subpoena’s primary purpose was to gather evidence for his upcoming trial on the indictment. He also argued the Special Prosecutor already had access to the information.
The Special Prosecutor opposed the motion, asserting the subpoena sought information related to other, uncharged criminal activities.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied Lerner’s motion to quash the subpoena.
After Lerner’s indictment, he renewed his motion, which was again denied by the Supreme Court after an in camera hearing with the Special Prosecutor.
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision.
Lerner appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court erred in basing its finding that the dominant purpose behind the grand jury’s post-indictment subpoena was to investigate other offenses solely on the Special Prosecutor’s verbal representations, without requiring production of the grand jury minutes.
Holding
No, because the Special Prosecutor’s sworn affirmation and in camera oral statement provided sufficient detail and specific allegations of wrongdoing to justify the court’s finding, and the court was not required to inspect the grand jury minutes.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the rule that a grand jury subpoena cannot be used primarily to prepare a pending indictment for trial, citing United States v. Dardi. However, the court emphasized that a grand jury investigation targeting other offenses is permissible, and any incidental evidence obtained can be used in the pending trial. The court found that the Special Prosecutor’s sworn affirmation and in camera testimony sufficiently demonstrated that the subpoena’s dominant purpose was to investigate crimes beyond those in the indictment. The court noted the Special Prosecutor detailed specific allegations of grand larceny, offering a false instrument for filing, and falsifying business records.
The court stated, “[t]he Grand Jury * * * is continuing its investigation into whether or not additional crimes have been committed. These additional crimes include, but are not necessarily limited to, Grand Larceny, Offering a False Instrument for Filing, and Falsifying Business Records. Thus, the records sought are required to obtain evidence for different crimes than contained in the said indictment.”
The court held that the Supreme Court was justified in relying on these representations without inspecting the grand jury minutes. The court also held that the in camera hearing was an acceptable method to preserve the secrecy of grand jury proceedings while apprising the court of the subpoena’s purpose. The court rejected Lerner’s arguments that the subpoena was overbroad and sought information already available, finding the Special Prosecutor adequately demonstrated the need for the subpoenaed materials to investigate uncharged offenses. Finally, the court addressed the issue of retaining the subpoenaed records, holding that since Lerner had not yet complied with the subpoena, the current law (CPL 610.25) permitting retention should apply.