STATE EX REL WOODAHL v DISTRICT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12918 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN THE STATE O M N A A on t h e r e l a t i o n o f F OTN ROBERT L. WOODAHL, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, Relator, THE DISTRICT COURT O THE FIRST JUDICIAL F DISTRICT O THE STATE O MONTANA, i n and F F f o r t h e County of Lewis and C l a r k , and t h e Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t and P e t e r G. Meloy, J u d g e s t h e r e o f , Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : F o r Rela t o r : Hon. R o b e r t L. bloodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana Kichard D z i v i , S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Donald N. Eastman, S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana For Respondents: Roland V. Colgrove a r g u e d , M i l e s C i t y , Montana Submitted: Decided : December 1 6 , 1974 JAN =. 7 1975 T h i s i s a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a writ o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Lewis and C l a r k County, and t o t h e two j u d g e s t h e r e o f , t h e Hono r a b l e Gordon R . B e n n e t t and t h e H o n o r a b l e P e t e r G . Meloy. The a p p l i c a t i o n i s by t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d i s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s formal request t h a t a g r a n d j u r y be empaneled t o i n q u i r e i n t o m a t t e r s r e l a t e d t o t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n , Department o f Labor a n d I n d u s t r y , Cause #38354 i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . T h i s C o u r t , on e x p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n , i s s u e d a n o r d e r c a l l i n g f o r an adversary hearing wherein counsel f o r r e l a t o r a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and respondent d i s t r i c t judges could appear i n o r a l argument. Such o r a l a r g u m e n t was h e a r d on December 1 6 , 1974. The background g i v i n g r i s e t o t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , a s r e c i t e d therein, is: I n 1967 t h e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d "The L e g i s l a t i v e A u d i t A c t " ( C h a p t e r 23, T i t l e 7 9 , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) and p r o v i d e d f o r a b i p a r t i s a n a u d i t committee w i t h t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o a p p o i n t a n a u d i t o r whose d u t y i t was t o make a u d i t s o f " e v e r y s t a t e agency a t l e a s t once each biennium." ( S e c t i o n 79-2308, R.C.M. 1947.) S e c t i o n 79-2308 f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) t h a t s a i d a u d i t o r was t o : "Report immediately i n w r i t i n g t o t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l any apparent v i o l a t i o n of penal s t a t u t e s d i s c l o s e d by t h e a u d i t of a s t a t e a g e n c y and f u r nish the attorney general a l l information i n h i s possession r e l a t i v e t o t h e violation." In 1973 a n a u d i t was p e r f o r m e d by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r of the a c c o u n t s and o p e r a t i o n s of t h e Workmen's Compensation s i v i s i o n , Department o f Labor and I n d u s t r y . The a u d i t o f h u n d r e d s of i n d u s t r y r e l a t e d i n j u r y c l a i m s r e v e a l e d e v i d e n c e t h a t wide- s p r e a d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y was o c c u r r i n g a n d had o c c u r r e d i n Norkrnen' s Compensation i l i v i s i o n r e l a t e d m a t t e r s . These a l l e g e d z r i m i n a l i r r e g u l a r i t i e s w e r e t h e r e a f t e r r e p o r t e d and r e f e r r e d by t h e b i p a r t i s a n a u d i t c o m m i t t e e - f o r t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 79-2308, R.C.M. 1947. I n 1974, t h e Montana L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d s e c t i o n 792 3 1 5 , R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s : "The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l s h a l l c o n d u c t o n b e h a l f o f the s t a t e , a l l prosecutions f o r public offenses d i s c l o s e d by a n a u d i t o f a s t a t e a g e n c y p e r f o r m e d by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r . I f t h e a t t o r n e y gene r a l s h a l l d e c l i n e such prosecution o r s h a l l f a i l t o commence a c t i o n on a p u b l i c o f f e n s e w i t h i n a reasonable t i m e t h e county a t t o r n e y of t h e approp r i a t e county s h a l l conduct on behalf of t h e s t a t e such prosecution." The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l assumed t h e d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l - i t i e s imposed upon h i s o f f i c e by t h i s new l e g i s l a t i o n and commenced t o i n v e s t i g a t e , p r e p a r e and p r o s e c u t e t h e a p p a r e n t c r i m i n a l v i o l a t i o n s i n workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n r e l a t e d m a t t e r s . A s of t h e d a t e of t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f i v e c r i m i n a l prose- c u t i o n s h a v e been i n i t i a t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a n d h i s s t a f f : S t a t e v . McKeon, Cause number 3868, L e w i s and C l a r k County; S t a t e v . L . R . B r e t z and G l o r i a Eusek C a r d e n , Cause number 6537 B , Casc a d e County; S t a t e v . F r a n k P r e i t e , Cause number 2724, H i l l County; S t a t e v . Thomas Powers, Cause number 2814, Deer Lodge County; S t a t e v . Merril C l i n e , L . R. B r e t z and S h i r l e y ( L a n k f o r d ) C l i n e , Cause number 3921, Lewis and C l a r k County. Through c o n s t a n t review of t h e f r u i t s of t h e ongoing a u d i t and d u r i n g t h e prosecut i o n o f t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d m a t t e r s and o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , much e v i d e n c e h a s been u n c o v e r e d d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t p u b l i c o c f i c e r s a n d / o r e m p l o y e e s , p a s t o r p r e s e n t , most o f whom h a v e o r had t h e i r o f f i c i a l b u s i n e s s o f f i c e s i n H e l e n a , a c t e d i n c o l l u s i o n with p r i v a t e persons such a s a t t o r n e y s , d o c t o r s , runners, etc., i n t h e commission o f p u b l i c o f f e n s e s a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e o f Montana, the I n d u s c r i a l A c c i d e n t Board, now t h e Workmen ' s Compensation U i v i s i o n ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s "IAB/WCD1') t h e r e o f , and i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t v i c t i m s who were c l a i m a n t s i n t h e IAB/WCD e a s e s a u d i t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r . A d d i t i o n a l l y , it i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e r e a r e s t r o n g i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t c e r t a i n persons a r e d e f i n i t e l y involved; t h a t o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s a r e p r o b a b l y i n v o l v e d ; and t h a t s t i l l o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s a r e possibly involved. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e d t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and h i s s t a f f i n t o p r i v a t e and p u b l i c s e c t o r s ; p e r s o n s c o n n e c t e d t h e r e w i t h r e s i s t e d and r e f u s e d t h e r e q u e s t s and demands of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and h i s s t a f f t o r e v e a l and d i s c l o s e m a t e r i a l f a c t s and e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o t h i s i n v e s t i - gation. I t was t h e r e f o r e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l t h a t a grand j u r y must be empaneled t o c a l l and command r e l u c t a n t w i t n e s s e s t o a p p e a r and produce e v i d e n c e s o t h a t t h e r e s p o n s i b l e i n d i v i d u a l s c a n be p r o s e c u t e d and t o e x o n e r a t e t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e s u s p e c t e d of committing c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s b u t who have n o t done s o , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e e v i d e n c e , o r where e v i d e n c e i s i n a d e q u a t e t o m e r i t i n i t i a t i o n of c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s . On October 1 8 , 1974, a p e t i t i o n was f i l e d w i t h respondo n t s erein in a s k i n g t h a t a g r a n d j u r y be promptly empaneled i n L e w i s and C l a r k County, s t a t e of Montana: " * * * f o r t h e purpose of i n q u i r i n g i n t o p u b l i c c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s , committed o r t r i a b l e i n L e w i s and C l a r k County which r e l a t e t o Workmen's Compe n s a t i o n D i v i s i o n m a t t e r s ; and a l s o , f o r t h e purpose of i n q u i r i n g i n t o a l l e g a t i o n s of w i l l f u l and c o r r u p t misconduct i n o f f i c e by p u b l i c o f f i c e r s w i t h i n t h e c o u n t y of Lewis and C l a r k , which r e l a t e t o Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n m . a t t e r s . " A f t e r s t u d y i n g t h e m a t t e r f o r s i x weeks, t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s r e q u e s t f o r t h e empaneling o f a grand j u r y was d e n i e d on November 2 7 , 1974, by r e s p o n d e n t J u d g e s Gordon R . B e n n e t t and P e t e r G . Meloy. Respondent d i s t r i c t j u d g e s based t h e i r de- c i s i o n on s e v e r a l p r e m i s e s , a l l of which p u r p o r t t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a grand j u r y i s n o t n e c e s s a r y . The o r d e r denying t h e r e q u e s t s t a t e s : "We have b e f o r e u s t h e P e t i t i o n of t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r t h e summoning of a g r a n d j u r y under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of 95-1401, R.C.M. 1947. T h a t s t a t u t e , and t h e 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 2 0 , a s w e l l a s t h e 1889 C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e 111, S e c t i o n 8 , p r o v i d e s t h a t a g r a n d j u r y may be drawn and summoned o n l y a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e C o u r t . That s t a t u t e s p e c i f i e s t h a t t h i s d i s c r e t i o n be e x e r c i s e d o n l y when t h e It is C o u r t f i n d s a grand j u r y 'necessary! t h e r e f o r e t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a grand jury t h a t rnust be of paramount c o n c e r n i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e Petition. " I n Montana, i n d i c t m e n t by grand j u r y h a s been r e p l a c e d , i n p r a c t i c e , a l m o s t e n t i r e l y by t h e d i r e c t f i l i n g of a.n i n f o r m a t i o n . The r e a s o n was b e s t s t a t e d by Chief J u s t i c e B r a n t l e y of t h e Xontana Supreme C o u r t s i x t y y e a r s a g o . R e f e r r i n g t o p r o s e c u t i o n by i n f o r m a t i o n a s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e 1889 C o n s t i t u t i o n he s a i d : "'One of t h e p u r p o s e s of t h e c o n v e n t i o n i n f o r m u l a t i n g i t , and t h e p e o p l e i n a d o p t i n g i t , was t o d i s p e n s e w i t h t h e s l o w , e x p e n s i v e , and t h e r e f o r e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y p r o c e d u r e by i n d i c t ment, and t o s u b s t i t u t e a p r o c e d u r e e x p e d i t i o u s and i n e x p e n s i v e , t o be a v a i l e d of by t h e p r o s e c u ting officers a t t h e i r discretion, subject t o c o n t r o l by t h e c o u r t , t o guard a p a r t i c u l a r def e n d a n t a g a i n s t o p p r e s s i o n and m a l i c e , and p r e v e n t a b u s e of power by t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y . ' S t a t e v . Vinn, 50 Mont. 27, 34. "The q u e s t i o n becomes, t h e n , what n e c e s s i t y j u s t i f i e s t h e e x t r a e x p e n d i t u r e of t i m e and money t h a t would undoubtedly be o c c a s i o n e d by t h e c a l l i n g of a grand j u r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e m a t t e r s referred t o in the Petition. "We b e l i e v e t h a t t h e most c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n f o r c a l l i n g a grand j u r y would be t h e f a i l u r e of t h o s e charged w i t h p r o s e c u t i o n t o c a r r y o u t t h a t responsibility. N such r e a s o n a p p e a r s i n t h e o P e t i t i o n o r i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s we unders t a n d them. The P e t i t i o n i t s e l f i s r e p l e t e with declarations t h a t t h e prosecution assigned t o t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e (Ch. 4 , L . 1974) i s n o t f a i l i n g and w i l l be d i l i g e n t l y , even ' r u t h l e s s l y " , p u r s u e d i f no j u r y i s impaneled. P r o s e c u t i o n s have begun i n f o u r c o u n t i e s , Cascade, H i l l , Lewis & C l a r k and Deer Lodge. One c o n v i c t i o n by p l e a h a s been o b t a i n e d . A i n v e s t i g a t i v e and p r o s e c u t o r i a l n s t a f f h a s been assembled and i s o p e r a t i n g throughout t h e s t a t e . W a r e f u r t h e r assured e by t h e same a c t t h a t i f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l d e c l i n e s o r f a l l s to ? r o s e c u t e w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y may conduct t h e prosecution. "The P e t i t i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t p r o s e c u t i o n may o r i s f e t t e r e d by l a c k of subpoena power. W f i n d no s u c h d e t r i m e n t . The l e g i s l a t u r e e h a s chosen t o make t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l i t s s p e c i a l a g e n t f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of ' p u b l i c o f f e n s e s d i s c l o s e d by an a u d i t of a s t a t e agency performed by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r . ' (Ch. 4 , L. 1 9 7 4 ) . I n d i s c h a r g i n g t h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y and p e c u l i a r f u n c t i o n t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l may draw on t h e subpoena power of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . The L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l h a s subpoena power ( S e c t . 43-713, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) , a s d o e s t h e L e g i s i a t i v e F i s c a l Review Committee ( S e c t . 43-1105, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) . F u l l a c c e s s t o a l l s t a t e government r e c o r d s and t h e r e c o r d s of a l l t h o s e r e c e i v i n g s t a t e government g r a n t s i s p r o v i d e d t h e L e g i s l a t i v e A u d i t o r ( S e c t s . 79-2314 and 7 9 - 2 3 1 0 ( 7 ) , R.C.M. 1947). I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Attorney General h a s f u l l s t a t u t o r y powers t o subpoena w i t n e s s e s and r e q u i r e them t o t e s t i f y under o a t h , a s w e l l a s compel t h e p r o d u c t i o n of documents ( S e c t . 95-1801 and 95-1802, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) . even from o u t of s t a t e ( S e c t . 94-9001 e t s e q . ) . he " I t i s suggested t h a t a grand jury i s necessary t o ' s i f t ' t h e mass of e v i d e n c e uncovered and t o be uncovered i n t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n . These m a t t e r s have been under i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t h e L e g i s l a t i v e A u d i t Committee and t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s o f f i c e f o r more t h a n a y e a r and a h a l f . W have been informed by t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l i n e t h e p r e s s and i n h i s P e t i t i o n t h a t t h e s e m a t t e r s a r e t e c h n i c a l , complex, w i d e l y r a m i f i e d , i n v o l v e l a r g e numbers of p e o p l e and voluminous documentat i o n and a r e v a s t i n s c o p e . The i n f o r m a t i o n h a s been developed and e v a l u a t e d by e x p e r t s . W e s e e no n e c e s s i t y o r p u r p o s e t o be s e r v e d by having it s i f t e d and e v a l u a t e d by e l e v e n p e o p l e summoned from o r d i n a r y walks of l i f e w i t h l i t t l e o r n o , . f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r . On t h e cont r a r y , t h e p r o c e s s would impede t h e p r o s e c u t i o n r a t h e r than e x p e d i t e it. "'i'he grand j u r y , a s c o n s t i t u t e d by s t a t u t e s of Montana, i s a l o c a l c o u n t y f u n c t i o n d e s i g n e d t o d e a l with a f f a i r s within t h e county. W e f i n d i n the s t a t u t e s a u t h o r i z i n g a g r a n d j u r y no i n t e n t i o n t o use a grand jury t o d e a l w i t h statewide a f f a i r s . The m a t t e r s a s s i g n e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n and prosecution a r e c l e a r l y not l o c a l county m a t t e r s but a r e l e g i s l a t i v e l y recognized statewide matters. "We f i n d t h a t it i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o impose upon t h e p e o p l e of Lewis and C l a r k County t h i s e x t r a a r d i n a r y burden. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r o s e c u t i o n a r e a l r e a d y f i n a n c e d by an a p p r o p r i a t i o n of t h e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e Attorney General i n t h e amount of $183,191.00, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f u n d i n g provided t h e L e g i s l a t i v e Auditor. The A t t o r n e y General h a s a l l of t h e n e c e s s a r y l e g a l t o o l s t o p u r s u e , a s he h a s , any c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s d i s c l o s e d by t h e Workmen's Compensation a u d i t . "'The P e t i t i o n i s d e n i e d . " There i s no s t a t u t o r y means p r o v i d e d f o r a p p e a l i n g t o t h i s Court from t h e a d v e r s e d e c i s i o n of t h e r e s p o n d e n t d i s t r i c t court. However, when t h e f a c t s c l e a r l y show t h a t a p a r t y h a s no p l a i n , speedy o r a d e q u a t e remedy a t law, and when t h e r e i s ilo r i g h t of a p p e a l from a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r , a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l may i s s u e s o t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e lower c o u r t may be reviewed by t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t . S t a t e ex r e l . Woodahl v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 159 Mont. 1 1 2 , 495 P.2d 1 8 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; Art V I I , Sec . 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n of Montana. I n S t a t e v . S u p e r i o r C o u r t i n and f o r County of Pima, 4 Ariz.App. 562, 4 2 2 P.2d 393, t h e Arizona c o u r t reviewed t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t of one s u p e r i o r c o u r t judge empaneling and d i s m i s s i n g a grand j u r y a f t e r t h e grand j u r y had been c a l l e d a n o t h e r judge. The Arizona Court h e l d t h a t i t had t h e power t o r e v i e w d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t s of t h e judge and r e v e r s e d . Citing Pennsylvania a u t h o r i t y , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d c l e a r l y t h a t d i s c r e t i o n of a lower c o u r t p e r t a i n i n g t o a grand j u r y i s s u b j e c t t o a p p e l - l a t e r e v i e w a s t o a b u s e of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . T h i s Court on p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n s h a s reviewed and checked t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n s by means of s u p e r - v i s o r y c o n t r o l and h a s found a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o invoke t h e s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l of t h i s C o u r t . S t a t e ex r e l . John C . H a r r i s o n v . D i s t . C t . of F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , 135 Mont. 365, 340 P.2d 544 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ; S t a t e e x r e l . Thomas J . Hanrahan v. D i s t . C t . of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , 145 Mont. 501, 4 0 1 'rhe L 3 7 L Montana Constitution, A r c . 11, Sec. 2 0 ( 2 ) , provides t h a t d i s t r i c t judges may empanel a g r a n d j u r y : "A grand j u r y s h a l l c o n s i s t of e l e v e n p e r s o n s , of whom e i g h t must concur t o f i n d a n i n d i c t ment. A grand j u r y s h a l l be drawn and summoned o n l y a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n and o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t judge. " S t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o grand j u r i e s r e i t e r a t e t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y a s p e c t of empaneling a grand j u r y . 95-1401, R.C.M. Section 1947, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : "A grand j u r y must o n l y be drawn and summoned when t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n c o n s i d e r s a grand j u r y n e c e s s a r y and s h a l l s o o r d e r . * * *I1 However, a l t h o u g h j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t y i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y , t h i s i s n o t an absolute, unbridled d i s c r e t i o n . The q u e s t i o n t h e n becomes whether t h e d i s t r i c t judges abused t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n . I n t h e language of S t a t e e x r e l . H a r r i s o n , s u p r a , and S t a t e e x r e l . Hanrahan, s u p r a , t h i s C o u r t i n q u i r e d a s t o whether t h e r e was a m a n i f e s t a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . Since, a s p r e v i o u s l y r e l a t e d , t h e two j u d g e s , a f t e r s i x weeks of d e l i b e r a t i o n and having b e f o r e them n o t o n l y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n r e c i t i n g rnuch a l l e g e d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y , b u t t h e f i l e s i n t h r e e c r i m i n a l cases already f i l e d , c a r e f u l l y expressed t h e i r reasons f o r t h e d e n i a l , a n e x a m i n a t i o n of t h o s e r e a s o n s w i l l be made. Such e x a m i n a t i o n w i l l i l l u m i n a t e whether t h e r e h a s been a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n , and whether t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n were e r r o n e o u s a s a m a t t e r of law. 1. The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s " d i l i g e n t l y " i n v e s t i g a t i n g and p r o s e c u t i n g a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s . no r e a s o n . This, i n a l e g a l sense, i s The f a c t remains t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l made t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a grand j u r y b e c a u s e of h i s a s s e r t e d and c o n f e s s e d i n a b i l i t y t o g e t a n s w e r s , c o o p e r a t i o n , and y e a - - r e s u l t s . To deny t h e r e q u e s t on t h i s b a s i s would r e q u i r e a p r o s e c u t o r t o p l e a d incompetence i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a grand j u r y . Such a r e a s o n would deny t h e u s e o f a g r a n d j u r y t o a " d i l i g e n t " p r o s e c u t o r . S u r e l y it was n o t t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , i n p l a c i n g t h e g r a n d j u r y c h a p t e r i n M o n t a n a ' s s t a t u t e s , t o deny a g r a n d j u r y t o a " d i l i g e n t " p r o s e c u t o r should t h e u s e of t h i s t o o l of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , f o r o t h e r v a l i d r e a s o n s , be deemed n e c e s s a r y t o enhance t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r o s e c u t i o n . 2. c The p r e v i o u s l y q u o t e d o r d e r s t a t e s t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s " s p e c i a l a g e n t " and t h a t it i s a n " e x t r a o r d i n a r y and p e c u l i a r f u n c t i o n " . W e a r e a t a l o s s t o f i n d wherein a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c e r u n d e r A r t . V I , S e c . 4 , 1972 Montana Cons t i t u t i o n named a s t h e l e g a l o f f i c e r o f t h e s t a t e i n t h e e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h o f government t o have t h e d u t i e s and powers p r o v i d e d by l a w , i s e i t h e r " s p e c i a l " o r d o i n g a " p e c u l i a r f u n c t i o n " . R a t h e r , h e i s t h e p r o p e r o f f i c e r a n d d o i n g a p r o p e r and n e c e s s a r y duty. The o r d e r a l s o s t a t e s t h a t he may draw on t h e subpoena power o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . f u n c t i o n s are d i s t i n c t . Indeed! L e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e No p e r s o n c h a r g e d w i t h t h e e x e r c i s e o f any power p r o p e r l y b e l o n g i n g t o t h e o t h e r s h a l l e x e r c i s e i t . Art. 111, S e c . 1, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . The u s e o f l e g i s - l a t i v e subpoena power would b e c l e a r l y a n d m a n i f e s t l y e r r o n e o u s . The o r d e r t h e n s t a t e s t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l h a s f u l l s t a t u t o r y powers t o subpoena u n d e r s e c t i o n s 95-1801 a n d 95-1802, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , and e v e n from o u t of s t a t e u n d e r s e c t i o n s 94-9001, e t seq., R.C.M. 1947. I n 1967 t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e p e a l e d sect i o n s 94-8901 t h r o u g h 94-8909. S e c t i o n 94-8901, s u b . 3 , had provided : " * * * It [ a subpoena] may be s i g n e d and i s s u e d by * * * . L'he z o u n t y dccorney, f o r w i t n e s s e s i n t n e s c a t e , i n s u p p o r t of a n i n d i c t m e n t o r information, t o appear before t h e c o u r t i n which i t i s t o be t r i e d ; * * *. I' In t h e y e a r 1916, t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e e x r e l . Wolfe v. D i s t . Ct., 52 Mont. 556, 557, 160 P . 3 4 6 , i n t e r p r e t e d t h a t s t a t u t e t o mean: " I t i s p e r f e c t l y obvious t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e r e p o s e s i n t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y a power which i s s u b j e c t t o no r e s t r a i n t , s a v e h i s own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y under t h e s a n c t i o n of h i s o f f i c i a l o a t h , and subpoenas i s s u e d by him oursuant t o t h i s s t a t u t e a r e i n para materia w i t h t h o s e i s s u e d by t h e c l e r k . * * * " That p r o v i s i o n was n o t c a r r i e d o v e r i n t o t h e new code of c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e i n s e c t i o n 95-1801. T h e r e f o r e , even i f t h e a u t h o r i t y existed f o r t h e prosecutor p r i o r t o indictment o r information, t h i s c l e a r c u t p r o v i s i o n was s p e c i f i c a l l y r e p e a l e d . Accordingly, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r i s m a n i f e s t l y wrong a s a m a t t e r of law. F u r t h e r , s e c t i o n 95-1801 ( a ) p r o v i d e s : "Upon t h e r e q u e s t of t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y o r t h e defendant o r h i s attorney, t h e c o u r t o r t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t s h a l l i s s u e subpoenas. The subpoena s h a l l s t a t e t h e name of t h e c o u r t and t h e t i t l e , i f any, of t h e p r o c e e d i n g , and s h a l l command e a c h p e r s o n t o whom i t i s d i r e c t e d t o a t t e n d and g i v e t e s t i m o n y and produce o b j e c t s and documents a t t h e t i m e and p l a c e specified therein. " From a r e a d i n g of s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) , a l l of t h e l a n g u a g e , taKen t o g e t h e r , means t h a t a c a s e must be a c t u a l l y f i l e d . Re- s p o n d e n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e words " t i t l e [ o f t h e c a u s e ] i f a n y , of t h e proceeding, * * *" under s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) , i n d i c a t e s a l e g i s - l a t i v e i n t e n t t o have subpoenas a v a i l a b l e i n o t h e r t h a n a c t u a l cases. This does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y follow. The p o i n t i s t h a t i t must be i s s u e d by a c o u r t and i s n o t a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l o r o t h e r p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y s i n d e p e n d e n t of a c o u r t o r grand j u r y . Looking now t o o u t of s t a t e w i t n e s s e s under s e c t i o n s 34--9001, e t seq., i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e language r e q u i r e s more t h a n j u s t a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n , it r e q u i r e s a " c r i m i n a l a c t i o n , p r o s e c u t i o n o r proceeding" and an a p p l i c a t i o n t o a c o u r t of record. Accordingly, t h e reasoning of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w on t h e subpoena powers a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a t t o r n e y general is i n error. 3. The i n f o r m a t i o n h a s been e v a l u a t e d by " e x p e r t s " and o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s would "impede" t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r a t h e r than "expedite" it. W need o n l y s a y h e r e t h a t t h e p e o p l e , e that i s o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s , have r e s e r v e d t o t h e m s e l v e s t h e r i g h t o f government. L i t i g a n t s have l o n g p l a c e d t h e i r f a i t h i n o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s s i t t i n g a s a t r i a l jury. So g r e a t i s t h i s f a i t h i n t h e competency o f o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s t h a t t h e r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y h a s been g i v e n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u r e . The j u r y s y s t e m g e n e r a l l y does, i n o u r view, an admirable j o b i n a system of a f r e e s o c i e t y . W e cannot and do n o t a c c e p t t h e thought t h a t o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s would "impede" t h e i n v e s t i g a . t i o n . The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , whose c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d s t a t u t o r y d u t y i t i s , i s s e e k i n g t h e h e l p and s c r u t i n y of t h e o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n . H e does n o t f e a r t h a t ordinary c i t i z e n s w i l l impede h i s work--nor should t h e c o u r t s . T h i s was n o t r a i s e d a s a l e g a l i s s u e , and t h e r e a s o n g i v e n i s n o t a l e g a l reason. 4. A g r a n d j u r y would be a f i n a n c i a l b u r d e n o n t h e p e o p l e of L e w i s and C l a r k County. on j u s t i c e . A p r i c e t a g s h o u l d n o t be p u t A l s o , a g r a n d j u r y may n o t r e s u l t i n a n i n c r e a s e d f i n a n c i a l burden. Lewis and C l a r k County i s where t h e s e a t o f government i s by o u r C o n s t i t u t i o n ( A r t . 111, sec. 2 ) . Matters a r i s i n g o u t of t h a t government's o p e r a t i o n w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t L e w i s a n d C l a r k County. Criminal prosecutions involving a c t s committed i n L e w i s and C l a r k County w i l l b e t r i e d h e r e . I t may w e l l be t h a t a g r a n d j u r y would r e s u l t i n a b e t t e r c a s e b e i n g prepared, thus resulting in less trial expense rather than more. But, conceding that it may cost more, the same thoughts are expressed by the citizens of other counties where state governinental activities or institutions are located. Powell County, where the state prison is located, has, and always has had, an extra burden as well as some benefits. The legislature has, and may well again, in good conscience attempted to equalize this burden. In any event, district judges are judicial officers of state government, and their considerations are to state government. The cost of a grand jury is not a sufficient legal reason. 5. wide matter. A county grand jury cannot investigate a stateThis last reason is palpably erroneous. The appli- cation made related to the practices of state officials and/or ernployees of the Workmen's Compensation Division whose offices are located in Lewis and Clark County. The application asked that a grand jury be empaneled "for the purpose of inquiring into public criminal offenses, committed or triable in Lewis and Clark County * * * and also, for the purpose of inquiring into allega- tions of willful and corrupt misconduct in office by public officers within the County of Lewis and Clark added.) * * *." (Emphasis Obviously the seat of government and the headquarters of the agency are the hub of the wheel. Crimes committed in a county are crimes against the state and are proper subjects of a grand jury convened in that county. Problems of venue and juris- diction may arise, but that is no concern at this state. During the oral presentation of counsel for the respondent judges, the merits and demerits of the grand jury system were alluded to. mental structure. It, the grand jury, is a part of our governWe need not debate its strengths and weaknesses. 'Then too, counsel for respondents argued that sufficient detailed facts were not presented to the district judges to cause them to cxerclse > h i :er discretion. 7 - t is d e t a i l e d reasons f o r denial--not of f a c t s . seen chat t h e order g i v e s one o f which s u g g e s t s a l a c k Had t h e judges d e s i r e d f a c t s more t h a n t h e y had, it seems c l e a r t h a t t h e y would have s a i d s o . A r e a d i n g of t h e o r d e r , h e r e t o f o r e q u o t e d , seems t o b r i n g f o r t h t h e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t judges b e l i e v e d t h a t a showing of " n e c e s s i t y " had t o be made i n a s e n s e of "absolute necessity". T i t l e 9 5 , R.C.M. But a r e a d i n g of t h e e n t i r e C h a p t e r 1 4 , 1947, and c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t grand j u r i e s a r e c o n s t i t u t i . o n a 1 b o d i e s , A r t . 11, S e c . 2 0 , p r o v i d i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e method of i n i t i a t i n g c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s , t h e word " n e c e s s a r y " d o e s n o t mean a b s o l u t e l y " n e c e s s a r y " . Now, h e r e t o f o r e we have examined e a c h of t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n f o r denying t h e r e q u e s t f o r a grand j u r y ; w e have found e a c h r e a s o n l e g a l l y wanting. But, b e c a u s e t h e r e a s o n s a r e wrong, does i t f o l l o w t h a t t h e r e h a s been a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s u f f i - c i e n t t o i n v o k e t h e s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l of t h i s C o u r t ? A s h e r e t o f o r e i n d i c a t e d , t h i s C o u r t h a s , on a t l e a s t two p r i o r o c c a s i o n s , reviewed t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n s and found an a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o i n v o k e t h e s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l of t h i s C o u r t . Dist. Ct., supra; S t a t e ex r e l . Harrison v. S t a t e e x r e l . Hanrahan v . D i s t . C o u r t , s u p r a . Respondents' c o u n s e l a r g u e d t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e man t e s t s h o u l d be u s e d . The r e a s o n s g i v e n by t h e r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e s a r e e r r o n e o u s a s a m a t t e r of law, and t h e " r e a s o n a b l e man" t e s t does not apply. T h i s a p p l i c a t i o n by t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l e g a l o f f i c e r of t h e s t a t e , a f t e r a y e a r of i n v e s t i g a t i v e e f f o r t , w i t h 3 w e a l t h of i n v e s t i g a t i v e f i n d i n g s and a s s e r t i o n s , e s t a b l i s h e s t h e r i e c e s s i t y f o r a grand j u r y a s t h e t e r m " n e c e s s a r y " i s used ~ o n s t i t u t i o n a l l yand by s t a t u t e . The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l c o n f e s s e s dn i n a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e a s u c c e s s f u l i n v e s t i g a t o r y c o n c l u s i o n whetner i t r e s u l t i n incriminations o r e x o n e r a t i o n s . This a p p l i c a t i o n by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i n al-1 i t s d e t a i l , a l b e i t no narnes were s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned, e s t a b l i s h e s a showing of t h e need f o r a g r a n d j u r y . On December 2 6 , 1974, t h e two r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e s f i l e d a p r a e c i p e r e q u e s t i n g t h i s Court t o t a k e n o t e of Lewis and C l a r k Zounty D i s t r i c t C o u r t Causes #3937 and 3938, e n t i t l e d r e s p e c t i v e l y , S t a t e v . John J . Carden and S t a t e v . John J . Carden and G l o r i a Eusik Carden. The p r a e c i p e was t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e a b i l i t y of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l t o subpoena w i t n e s s e s under s e c t i o n 95-1801 was now moot, and a p p a r e n t l y r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e s f e l t t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n t h e i r o r d e r o f November 24, 1974, h e r e t o f o r e q u o t e d , was even more j u s t i f i e d . T h i s C o u r t h a s o b t a i n e d c o p i e s of a l l t h e p e r t i n e n t p a p e r s i n t h e above mentioned d i s t r i c t c o u r t c a u s e s , i n c l u d i n g t n e s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t s and t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t r e p o r t , t h i s cime w i t h names, d a t e s and p l a c e s . A r e a d i n g of t h o s e p e r t i n e n t p a p e r s r e v e a l s a s o r d i d web o f e t h i c a l and c r i m i n a l v i o l a t i o n s involving numerous i n d i v i d u a l s , b o t h o f f i c i a l and u n o f f i c i a l . I n c l u d e d t h e r e i n a r e a l l e g a t i o n s of involvement of t h e j u d i c i a l b r a n c h of government, a judge and a t t o r n e y s a s o f f i c e r s of t h i s Court. With p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o m a t t e r s a r i s i n g d u r i n g and o u t of t h e c a s e of G a z e t t e P r i n t i n g Co. v . Carden, 517 P.2d 361, 30 St.Rep, 26, - .Mont I 1 1 6 1 , d e c i d e d by t h i s C o u r t on December 1973, i f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s be t r u e , even t h i s C o u r t h a s been deceived; while w e w e r e deceived, we a r r i v e d a t t h e c o r r e c t r e s u l t by r e v e r s i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r . These m a t t e r s - a r i s i n g s i n c e t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s a p p l i c a t i o n makes it even more i m p e r a t i v e t h a t t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r be s u b j e c t e d t o t h e s c r u t i n y of a grand j u r y t o a i d t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; and t h u s t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t judges nua at be exercised f a v o r a b l y t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e a t t o r n e y general. F i n d i n g no l e g a l r e a s o n s f o r t h e d e n i a l of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a grand j u r y , we f i n d t h a t it was, i n law, a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o deny t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , a w r i t s h a l l i s s u e from t h i s Court d i r e c t i n g the judges of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t t o empanel a grand j u r y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s a p p l i c a t i o n therefor. ................................. Chief J u s t i c e

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.