## Facts

- Three criminal defendants in separate federal prosecutions in the District of Columbia (Coleman, Dancis, Shepard) jointly filed a civil class action challenging practices at Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5 preliminary hearings before a U.S. magistrate.
- Coleman sought a subpoena for the only apparent eyewitness to his alleged offense at his preliminary hearing; the magistrate denied the request. Coleman later pled guilty in his criminal case.
- Dancis was charged under the Marijuana Tax Act based on two undercover transactions and sought a subpoena for the undercover agent, the sole eyewitness; the magistrate denied the subpoena.
- At Dancis’s preliminary hearing, the government presented only the undercover agent’s supervisor, who testified based on hearsay; the agent’s identity was not disclosed. The magistrate found probable cause.
- Shepard was charged with assaulting a deputy U.S. marshal in a jail cellblock; at the preliminary hearing, the magistrate limited cross-examination of two government witnesses to matters within the scope of direct examination and excluded defense questions viewed as discovery-oriented. The magistrate found probable cause.
- After the hearings, plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, mandamus to reopen the preliminary hearings, and an injunction to block grand jury presentation pending corrected hearings.
- The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the action; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant at a federal Rule 5 preliminary hearing has a right to subpoena and examine a material eyewitness central to the probable-cause determination.
2. Whether a magistrate may restrict cross-examination at a preliminary hearing to prevent use of the proceeding as broad discovery, consistent with the Constitution and the criminal rules.
3. Whether alleged defects in preliminary hearings may be remedied through a collateral civil class action seeking declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief, including after indictment or a guilty plea.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part.
- As to Dancis, the court ordered a remand for entry of a declaratory judgment that his preliminary hearing was defective due to denial of a subpoena for the sole material eyewitness while the government relied on hearsay.
- As to Shepard, the court affirmed dismissal, holding the magistrate’s limits on cross-examination were permissible because they prevented discovery-like inquiry and did not eliminate meaningful testing of probable cause.
- As to Coleman, the court affirmed dismissal, concluding his later guilty plea foreclosed collateral civil litigation over alleged nonjurisdictional defects in the preliminary hearing.
- The court declined to order reopening of hearings or to enjoin grand jury proceedings, indicating that concrete remedies ordinarily should be pursued within the criminal cases.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 5 preliminary hearing is primarily a probable-cause screening mechanism and is not a substitute for trial or an unrestricted discovery device.
- The accused must have a meaningful opportunity, through counsel, to challenge the government’s showing of probable cause at a preliminary hearing.
- A magistrate may not arbitrarily deny compulsory process for a material eyewitness whose testimony is central to probable cause; insulating the only eyewitness from examination while proceeding solely by hearsay can render the hearing defective.
- A magistrate may impose reasonable limits on cross-examination to confine the proceeding to probable cause and to exclude questioning aimed chiefly at discovery or collateral matters, so long as core testing of probable cause remains available.
- Collateral civil relief to correct preliminary-hearing defects is limited; a voluntary guilty plea generally waives earlier nonjurisdictional defects, and procedural challenges ordinarily should be handled within the criminal process.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit recognized that preliminary hearings are limited probable-cause proceedings, but held that denying a subpoena for the sole material eyewitness can invalidate the hearing, while reasonable restrictions preventing discovery-driven cross-examination are permissible; it allowed only declaratory relief for the defective hearing and rejected broader civil intervention, especially where a guilty plea mooted the challenge.


Coleman v. Burnett, 477 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1973)