In re: Grand Jury Process, John Doe, No. 15-3603 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAn attorney petitioned for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition directing the district court to set aside an order that disqualified counsel from representing three witnesses in a grand jury proceeding and to schedule a hearing to address whether counsel has an unwaivable conflict of interest that necessitates his disqualification. Having reviewed the sealed motion to disqualify filed by the United States Attorney, which includes information derived from secret grand jury proceedings, the court is satisfied that counsel does have a conflict of interest in concurrently representing his three clients during proceedings before the grand jury. The court concluded that the district court's ruling was not a clear abuse of discretion and agreed with the district court that a hearing to consider possible waivers of counsel’s conflict of interest would require a deleterious breach of grand jury secrecy. Further, the court concluded that, assuming that a grand jury witness could waive his interest in conflict-free assistance of counsel, the district court did not engage in judicial usurpation of power by concluding that no such waiver was feasible or permissible under the circumstances presented here. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in disqualifying petitioner, a lawyer representing three clients in connection with an ongoing federal grand jury investigation, on the ground that his concurrent representation of the three clients created a conflict of interest; the court did not err in reaching this determination without a hearing to consider possible waivers of counsel's conflict of interest as the hearing would require a deleterious breach of grand jury secrecy; assuming that a grand jury witness could waive his interest in conflict-free assistance of counsel, the district court did not engage in a judicial usurpation of power by concluding that no such waiver was feasible or permissible under the circumstances.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.