Recent federal cases in Wyoming and Illinois involving judicial findings of prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury have resulted in dismissed indictments. In Wyoming, three federal judges dismissed nine felony indictments after concluding that the interim U.S. Attorney made inflammatory and prejudicial remarks to grand jurors that compromised the integrity of the proceedings. In Illinois, the prosecution of the so-called “Broadview Six” collapsed after a federal judge authorized disclosure and review of grand jury materials amid allegations of serious misconduct during the charging process, leading the government to dismiss the remaining charges with prejudice.

These outcomes are remarkable because courts rarely agree to scrutinize what occurs before the grand jury. Grand jury proceedings are cloaked in secrecy, and courts generally presume that prosecutors properly present evidence and accurately instruct grand jurors on the law. As a result, efforts to challenge indictments based on misconduct in the charging process face a steep uphill battle. The Wyoming and Illinois cases nevertheless demonstrate that, where defense counsel can identify objective facts raising legitimate concerns about the integrity of the grand jury process, courts may be willing to look behind the curtain, authorize disclosure or review of grand jury materials, and, in extraordinary circumstances, dismiss indictments altogether. This blog post examines those cases, the legal framework governing grand jury secrecy, and the practical lessons they offer for defense counsel seeking to investigate and litigate potential grand jury misconduct.