## Facts

- Larry A. Wood, a private citizen, was indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to commit bank fraud involving false loan applications and was later acquitted at trial.
- After the acquittal, Wood alleged wrongdoing by an FBI agent and an assistant U.S. attorney in connection with Wood’s indictment, including that the agent had testified falsely before the grand jury and that the prosecutor knew of or participated in misconduct.
- Wood (through counsel) asked the U.S. Attorney’s Office to present these allegations to the grand jury and requested alternatives if the government declined, including allowing Wood (or counsel) to present the matter or appointing a special prosecutor.
- The U.S. Attorney did present the allegations to the grand jury, but the grand jury declined to take action.
- Wood then applied to the federal district court, asserting that the allegations had not been fairly presented to the grand jury and seeking an order allowing his attorney to present the matter or the appointment of a special prosecutor.
- The district court reviewed a sealed transcript of what the prosecutor told the grand jury. The court found the presentation generally accurate, but concluded that certain statements by the prosecutor could have misled the grand jury about its authority to investigate and call witnesses, effectively discouraging further inquiry.
- The district court ordered the U.S. Attorney to re-present Wood’s allegations to the grand jury in a fair manner and directed that decisions about any investigation and any witnesses be made by the grand jury rather than by government attorneys.
- The district court also stated that if the U.S. Attorney failed to comply, Wood’s request to appear before the grand jury would be granted.
- The United States appealed the district court’s order.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may order the U.S. Attorney to re-present a private citizen’s allegations of official wrongdoing to a grand jury in a fair, non-misleading manner and on terms designed to protect the grand jury’s independence.
2. Whether the district court may condition the government’s noncompliance with that order on granting the private citizen’s request to appear before the grand jury.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order.
- The court held that the district court acted within its limited supervisory authority over the grand jury process when it required the allegations to be re-presented in a way that would not mislead the grand jury about its investigative powers.
- The court approved the district court’s requirement that the grand jury—not the prosecutor—control decisions about whether to investigate further and what witnesses to hear, given that the allegations concerned misconduct by government actors involved in the earlier grand jury proceedings.
- The court did not recognize a general right of private citizens to appear before a federal grand jury, but it upheld the district court’s conditional statement about Wood’s possible appearance as part of the court’s remedial supervision of the presentation.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts have limited supervisory power over grand jury proceedings to prevent unfairness and to address conduct that may mislead grand jurors about their authority or function.
- Courts may take steps to protect the grand jury’s independent role, including correcting presentations that could chill investigation by incorrectly suggesting limits on the grand jury’s ability to seek evidence or hear witnesses.
- Separation-of-powers concerns limit courts from directing prosecution decisions (such as ordering an indictment), but do not bar judicial control over the fairness of the process by which matters are presented to the grand jury.
- A private citizen generally has no enforceable right to appear before a federal grand jury; however, a district court may craft procedural relief aimed at ensuring that allegations—especially those involving official misconduct—are presented without material distortion.

## Conclusion

In *In re Application of Wood*, the Eighth Circuit upheld a district court order requiring the U.S. Attorney to re-present Wood’s allegations of misconduct to the grand jury in a fair and non-misleading way and requiring that the grand jury itself control any follow-up investigation and witness selection; the court also sustained the district court’s conditional remedy that Wood could be allowed to appear before the grand jury if the government did not comply with the re-presentation order.


In re Application of Wood, 833 F.2d 113 (1987)