Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 6
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
Section (f) has been amended to conform to the 2011 amendments to the federal rule. It permits the court to take an indictment return by video teleconference to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
COMMENT TO 2016 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been redrafted to conform to the general restyling of the federal rules in 2002, and to the minor stylistic changes made in 2006. It differs from the federal rule in several respects.
Paragraphs (a), (c) (g),and (h) provide that the Chief Judge (or his or her designee), rather than the court in general, controls the summoning, discharging, and excusing of jurors and the appointing of the foreperson and deputy foreperson.
Subparagraph (b)(2), concerning motions to dismiss the indictment, refers to D.C. Code § 11-1910 (2012 Repl.), rather than to the federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e).
The contempt provision, formerly the last sentence of subparagraph (e)(2), is now subparagraph (e)(7).
Subparagraph (e)(3) contains several new provisions. First, subparagraph (e)(3)(A)(ii) recognizes the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the possibility that it would be necessary to disclose grand-jury information to appropriate tribal officials in order to enforce the law. Similar language has been added to Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(iv).
Second, subparagraph (e)(3)(A)(iii) recognizes that disclosure may be made to a person under 18 U.S.C. § 3322 (authorizing disclosures to an attorney for the government and banking regulators for enforcing civil forfeiture and civil banking laws).
Third, subparagraph (e)(3)(E)(v) addresses disclosure of grand-jury information to armed forces personnel where the disclosure is for the purpose of enforcing military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946.
Fourth, subparagraph (e)(3)(D) reflects changes made to Rule 6 by Section 203 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 ( Pub. L. No. 107-56; 115 Stat. 272) and by Section 6501 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004 ( Pub. L. No. 108-458; 118 Stat. 3638). The USA PATRIOT Act provision permits an attorney for the government to disclose grand-jury matters involving foreign intelligence or counterintelligence to other federal officials, in order to assist those officials in performing their duties. The term "foreign intelligence information" is defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii). The IRTPA provision permits an attorney for the government to disclose grand jury matters involving, within the United States or elsewhere, threats of attack, sabotage, terrorism and clandestine intelligence gathering activities to appropriate federal, state, Indian tribal, or foreign government officials, in order to assist those officials in preventing or responding to such threats or activities. Under Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(i), the federal official receiving the information may only use the information as necessary and may be otherwise limited in making further disclosures. Any disclosures made under this provision must be reported under seal, within a reasonable time, to the court.
Finally, subparagraph (e)(3)(E)(iii) is a new provision added by the IRTPA. It permits the court, on motion of the government, to authorize disclosures sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation.
Subparagraph (e)(3)(B) differs from the federal rule in two ways. First, it retains a reference to the government attorney's duty to enforce both local and federal criminal law. Second, it retains a requirement that the attorney for the government provide disclosure notice to "the Superior Court" rather than to "the court that impaneled the grand jury."
Subparagraph (e)(3)(C) consists of language formerly found in subparagraph (e)(3)(C)(iii). It retains language permitting the attorney for the government to disclose a "grand-jury matter to another grand jury in the District of Columbia", rather than to a federal grand jury. Similarly, subparagraph (e)(3)(F) retains language, formerly in subparagraph (e)(3)(D), requiring that a disclosure petition be filed "with the clerk of the court" rather than "in the district where the grand jury convened."
Subparagraph (e)(3)(G) of the federal rule, concerning a disclosure petition "aris[ing] out of a judicial proceeding in another district," has been omitted as not applicable to Superior Court practice.
Subparagraph (e)(4) is the same as the federal rule except that this rule refers to the "judge" rather than to the "magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned." Similarly, paragraph (f) refers twice to "judge" rather than to "magistrate judge."
Paragraphs (g) and (h) ("Discharging the Grand Jury" and "Excusing a Juror," respectively) consist of language that was previously found in paragraph (g) ("Discharge and Excuse").
Paragraph (g) differs from the federal rule by omitting the phrase "except as otherwise provided by statute," which refers to the locally inapplicable 18 U.S.C. § 3331.