Free Consultations & We're Available 24/7
WE'RE A BOUTIQUE LAW FIRM.
TRUST 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
WE SERVICE CLIENTS NATIONWIDE.
The Spodek Law Group – we’re a second-generation firm with over 40 years combined experience. Todd Spodek, he’s been defending federal cases for decades. We’re seeing prosecutors trying to use grand jury testimony at trial. Daily. Every day!
So your probably thinking that secret grand jury testimony stays secret forever. Or maybe your convinced what you said to the grand jury – without a lawyer, without protection – can’t hurt you at trial. Worse – you believe that because there was no judge present, no defense lawyer objecting, none of it counts.
Wrong. Dead wrong.
Maybe you think Rule 6(e) protects you completely. Maybe your hoping those transcripts are sealed forever. Maybe you believe prosecutors can’t use your own words against you.
Look. Let me tell you something.
Your desperately trying to understand whether that testimony – given months ago, maybe years ago – is about to destroy your defense. The prosecutors, they’re digging through transcripts. Looking for contradictions. Looking for admissions.
But heres the TERRIFYING truth – and it is terrifying, truly terrifying – while grand jury testimony is generally inadmissible at trial, there are exceptions. Exceptions that prosecutors are exploiting. Every. Single. Day. According to Federal Rules of Evidence analysis from legal scholars, these exceptions are growing!
Your own words. Used against you. At trial.
Grand jury testimony? It’s facing major admissibility problems. Major ones.
First problem – the hearsay rule. Grand jury testimony is being considered hearsay when offered at trial. Out-of-court statements. Being offered for the truth. That’s hearsay, plain and simple. According to Cornell Law’s Legal Information Institute, hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it’s falling within specific exceptions.
But here’s the bigger problem. The BIGGER problem.
The Sixth Amendment. Your right to confront witnesses against you. When you – or someone else – was testifying to that grand jury, where was the defense lawyer? Nowhere. No cross-examination. No objections. No protection.
The Supreme Court? They’re saying this violates the Confrontation Clause. You can’t cross-examine a transcript. Can’t challenge it. Can’t expose the pressure that was being applied in that room.
Think about it. Really think about it.
In that grand jury room, prosecutors are controlling everything. Every question. Every topic. Leading witnesses down paths. No judge to say “objection sustained.” No defense lawyer to protect anyone. It’s a one-sided interrogation – and now they’re wanting to use it at trial?
Our attorneys see this constantly. Prosecutors trying to slip grand jury testimony into trial. Through the back door. Through exhibits. Through “refreshing recollection.” They’re always looking for ways around the rules.
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure – that’s supposed to be protecting grand jury secrecy. Supposed to be.
Grand jury proceedings are secret, that’s the rule, that’s what they tell you, but secrecy is having holes, exceptions, ways prosecutors are getting around it, and according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Rule 6(e) prohibits disclosure by grand jurors and government attorneys EXCEPT – and this is a big except – under limited circumstances provided by Rule 6(e)(3), which is opening doors prosecutors are walking through.
Who can’t talk about grand jury proceedings? Grand jurors themselves, prosecutors, court reporters, interpreters – they’re all bound by secrecy, facing contempt charges if they’re talking, but here’s what they’re not telling you straight – the witness, the person who was testifying, YOU if you testified, you’re NOT bound by the same secrecy rules, which is meaning you could have talked about your testimony, maybe you did talk about it, and now that’s creating problems.
But releasing to the court? Different story entirely, because courts are having power to order disclosure when it’s needed for justice, when defendants are needing it for their defense, when there’s particularized need – that’s the standard – showing that the material is needed to avoid possible injustice, and prosecutors? They’re arguing against disclosure every time, fighting to keep transcripts secret while simultaneously trying to use them, it’s hypocrisy at its finest.
The Supreme Court has been clear – or claims to be clear – that grand jury testimony must generally remain sealed, but “generally” is doing a lot of work in that sentence, because exceptions are swallowing the rule, and our attorneys are constantly fighting these battles, demanding access when prosecutors are hiding exculpatory evidence in grand jury transcripts, demanding fairness in a system that’s rigged for secrecy.
The general rule? NO. Grand jury testimony is NOT admissible at trial.
But. And this is a massive but.
Exceptions. There are always exceptions. Prosecutors are knowing every single one.
First exception – impeachment. If a witness is testifying at trial differently than they testified to the grand jury? Boom. Prosecutors are pulling out those transcripts. “Didn’t you tell the grand jury something different?” They’re destroying credibility with the witness’s own words.
Second exception – party admissions. If YOU testified to the grand jury? Your own statements might be coming in against you. Not hearsay when it’s your own words. The prosecutors are loving this exception.
Third exception – unavailable witness. According to Northwestern University Law Review scholarship, if a witness is unavailable – dead, can’t be found, claiming privilege – there grand prior testimony might be admissible under Rule 804(b)(5).
Fourth exception – refreshing recollection. Prosecutors are showing witnesses there grand jury testimony to “refresh” memory. The jury’s not supposed to see it. But they’re hearing about it. They’re getting the message.
Our attorneys? We’re objecting every time. Fighting every attempt. Because once that grand jury testimony is in front of the jury – even improperly – the damage is done. Can’t un-ring that bell.
Rule 6(e) – it’s the federal rule that’s supposedly protecting grand jury secrecy. Supposedly.
This rule is saying “no disclosure.” But then it’s listing exceptions. So many exceptions. The rule is becoming more exception than rule.
Who’s bound by Rule 6(e)? Let me tell you who:
But violations? They’re happening. Leaks to media. Whispers to investigators. Information finding its way out.
The penalties for violating Rule 6(e)? Contempt of court. Criminal prosecution. Professional discipline. Sounds serious, right? But enforcement? That’s another story. Prosecutors are rarely getting punished for violations. Rarely.
And here’s what’s really happening – prosecutors are using Rule 6(e) as a sword AND a shield. They’re hiding behind it when defense wants access. But they’re finding ways around it when they need evidence. It’s a game. A rigged game.
Courts CAN order release. They can. But getting them to do it? That’s the battle.
The standard is “particularized need.” Sounds simple. It’s not. Not even close.
You need to show three things. Three specific things. First – the material is needed to avoid possible injustice. Second – the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy. Third – the request is structured to cover only material so needed.
When are courts actually releasing it?
When prosecutors have been lying. When exculpatory evidence is hidden in transcripts. When witness testimony at trial is completely contradicting grand jury testimony. When there’s proof of grand jury abuse.
But judges? They’re reluctant. So reluctant. “Grand jury secrecy is sacred,” they say. “Foundational to the system.” Meanwhile, your facing prison based on evidence you can’t even see.
Our attorneys have been fighting these battles. We’ve seen judges deny access even when it’s obvious something’s wrong. Even when prosecutors are clearly hiding something. The system is protecting itself, not defendants.
Grand jury testimony has multiple inadmissibility problems. Multiple!
Confrontation Clause – that’s the big one. The Sixth Amendment is guaranteeing your right to confront witnesses. But in the grand jury? No confrontation. No cross-examination. No defense lawyer present. The Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington – they said testimonial statements without cross-examination violate the Confrontation Clause.
Hearsay issues – devastating. Grand jury testimony is classic hearsay. Out-of-court statements offered for truth. Unless an exception applies – and prosecutors are always looking for exceptions – it’s inadmissible.
Due process violations – being real here. The grand jury process itself is fundamentally unfair. One-sided. Prosecutor-controlled. Using that testimony at trial? It’s compounding the unfairness.
Prejudice outweighing probative value – even if technically admissible, courts can exclude evidence that’s more prejudicial than probative. Grand jury testimony – taken without protection, without objections – is inherently prejudicial.
Our attorneys are making all these arguments. Every single one. Because keeping grand jury testimony out can be the difference between conviction and acquittal.
Grand jury testimony is sworn statements. Under oath. Under pressure. Without protection.
Your walking into that room – or being dragged in by subpoena. No judge. Just prosecutors and 16-23 grand jurors who are already on the government’s side. Your raising your right hand. Swearing to tell the truth.
Then what?
Prosecutors are asking questions. Leading questions. Compound questions. Argumentative questions. There’s no judge to object. No lawyer to protect you. Your on your own. Completely alone.
The testimony is being recorded. Every word. Court reporter typing frantically. Creating a permanent record that prosecutors are combing through later. Looking for inconsistencies. Looking for admissions. Looking for anything they can use.
You can’t refuse to answer. Well, you can plead the Fifth. But prosecutors are granting immunity sometimes. Then you HAVE to answer. No choice. Talk or go to jail for contempt.
The pressure in that room? Crushing. Grand jurors staring. Prosecutor circling. Your trying to remember dates from years ago. Trying to explain complex situations. Without documents. Without preparation. Without help.
That testimony – given under these conditions – that’s what prosecutors want to use at trial. Think about that unfairness.
For defendants? The disadvantages are ENORMOUS. Absolutely enormous.
No judge supervising. Think about that. Prosecutors are running the show completely. Asking whatever they want. However they want. Leading witnesses down paths. No neutral magistrate saying “that’s improper.”
No defense participation. Your lawyer? Sitting outside. Can’t object. Can’t cross-examine. Can’t present exculpatory evidence. It’s like a trial where only the prosecution gets to present.
Creates permanent record. Everything said is being transcribed. Locked in. Years later, prosecutors are using those transcripts. Comparing them to trial testimony. Finding tiny differences. “On page 47 you said Tuesday, now you say Wednesday.”
One-sided presentation. Prosecutors are choosing what evidence to present. What to hide. They’re not telling grand jurors about problems with there case. About credibility issues. About exculpatory evidence.
Low standard of proof. Probable cause. That’s all. Not beyond reasonable doubt. Not even preponderance. Just probable cause. And grand jurors? They’re indicting ham sandwiches.
Our attorneys see the damage grand juries do. The transcripts that haunt defendants. The testimony given without understanding consequences. It’s a trap. A constitutional trap that prosecutors are exploiting.
Call us RIGHT NOW at 212-300-5196
Grand jury testimony could destroy your case – you need protection IMMEDIATELY!
Available 24/7 to review transcripts and block admissibility!
The bottom line? Here’s the real bottom line.
Grand jury testimony is generally NOT admissible at trial. Generally. But prosecutors are knowing every exception. Every loophole. Every way to get it in front of the jury.
Your testimony – or testimony about you – given without protection, without a lawyer, without a judge, could be used against you. Could be. Will be if prosecutors find a way.
The rules are supposed to protect you. Rule 6(e). The Confrontation Clause. Hearsay rules. But rules have exceptions. And exceptions have exceptions.
Don’t think your safe. Don’t think that testimony is buried forever. Prosecutors are digging. Always digging.
Our attorneys know these battles. Every trick prosecutors use. Every objection that works. Every motion that keeps testimony out.
Remember – if you testified to a grand jury, those words are out there. Waiting. If someone testified about you, that’s out there too. Waiting to surface.
Call us NOW – before prosecutors spring grand jury testimony on you at trial. Before they use your own words – or words about you – given without protection, to convict you. Our attorneys can review transcripts, file motions, make objections. Protect you from testimony that should never see a courtroom!
This is attorney advertising. Prior results dont guarantee similar outcomes. Grand jury testimony rules vary by jurisdiction.
Very diligent, organized associates; got my case dismissed. Hard working attorneys who can put up with your anxiousness. I was accused of robbing a gemstone dealer. Definitely A law group that lays out all possible options and best alternative routes. Recommended for sure.
- ROBIN, GUN CHARGES ROBIN
NJ CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS