William Rehnquist

Name: Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court
Author: William Rehnquist

Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by William Rehnquist. It explores elements such as grand jury, secrecy and Florida.

Quotes from Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court (William Rehnquist)

William Rehnquist, Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ But we do not believe those interests warrant a permanent ban on the disclosure by a witness of his own testimony once a grand jury has been discharged. Some of these interests are not served at all by the Florida ban on disclosure, and those that are served are not sufficient to sustain the statute.
When an investigation ends, there is no longer a need to keep information from the targeted individual in order to prevent his escape-that individual presumably will have been exonerated, on the one hand, or arrested or otherwise informed of the charges against him, on the other. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Rehnquist, Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ After giving his testimony, respondent believes he is no longer free to communicate this information since it relates to the "content, gist, or import" of his testimony. The ban extends not merely to the life of the grand jury but into the indefinite future. The potential for abuse of the Florida prohibition, through its employment as a device to silence those who know of unlawful conduct or irregularities on the part of public officials, is apparent. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Rehnquist, Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ Florida's interest in preventing the subornation of grand jury witnesses who will later testify at trial is served by the prohibition in question to this extent: if the accused is of a mind to suborn potential witnesses against him, he will have an additional opportunity to learn of the existence of such a witness if that witness chooses to make his grand jury testimony public. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Rehnquist, Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, or communicate to any other person, or knowingly to cause or permit to be published, broadcast, disclosed, divulged, or communicated to any other person, in any manner whatsoever, any testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury, or the content, gist, or import thereof, except when such testimony is or has been disclosed in a court proceeding. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Rehnquist, Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ See 1 S. Beale & W. Bryson, Grand Jury Law and Practice § 1:02, pp. 5-8 (1986) . The tradition of secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings evolved, at least partially, as a means of implementing this latter function by ensuring the impartiality of that body. Douglas Oil Co. of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218-219, n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1672-1673, n. 9, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979) ; Brown, The Witness and Grand Jury Secrecy, 11 Am.J.Crim. Law 169, 170 (1983) . Today, grand jury secrecy remains important to safeguard a number of different interests. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Rehnquist, Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ The pertinent Advisory Committee Notes on Rule 6 (e) (2) , 18 U.S.C.App., p. 726, expressly exempt witnesses from the obligation of secrecy, stating that " [t] he seal of secrecy on witnesses seems an unnecessary hardship and may lead to injustice if a witness is not permitted to make a disclosure to counsel or to an associate." Similarly, only 14 States have joined Florida in imposing an obligation of secrecy on grand jury witnesses. Of the remaining 35 States, 21 either explicitly or implicitly exempt witnesses from a general secrecy obligation, and 14 simply remain silent on the issue. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Rehnquist, Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ Indeed, we have noted that grand juries are expected to "operate within the limits of the First Amendment," as well as the other provisions of the Constitution. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 708, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2670, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) . See also Wood v. ”

William Rehnquist

Summary

Quotes from Butterworth v. Smith — Opinion of the Court (William Rehnquist)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature