## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted Kenneth James Callahan under the federal kidnapping statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1201.
- During the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor presented information that Callahan had taken a polygraph examination concerning his involvement in the charged kidnapping and that he allegedly failed the examination.
- Before trial, Callahan moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the prosecutor’s use of polygraph-related information before the grand jury was improper; the court reserved ruling at that time.
- Callahan was tried before a petit jury, which found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
- After the verdict, Callahan moved for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 or, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 33.
- In support of post-verdict relief, Callahan renewed his challenge to the indictment based on the polygraph reference and also argued that, even if the prosecutor could mention the polygraph, the prosecutor had a duty to tell the grand jury that the polygraph information was hearsay and not admissible at trial.

## Issues

1. After a guilty verdict, does a prosecutor’s reference before the grand jury to a defendant’s failed polygraph examination require dismissal of the indictment or a new trial?
2. If a prosecutor refers to a defendant’s polygraph examination in grand jury proceedings, must the prosecutor instruct the grand jury that the polygraph information is hearsay or otherwise unreliable as a condition of a valid indictment?
3. Was the trial evidence sufficient to sustain Callahan’s kidnapping conviction, or did the interests of justice require a new trial?

## Decision

- The court denied Callahan’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
- The court denied Callahan’s motion for a new trial.
- The court declined to dismiss the indictment based on the grand jury’s exposure to polygraph-related information and rejected the argument that the prosecutor had an affirmative duty to advise the grand jury that the polygraph material was hearsay.
- The court held that the trial record supported the guilty verdict and that no post-verdict relief was warranted.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment that is valid on its face is generally not subject to dismissal because the grand jury heard information that would be inadmissible at trial; grand jury proceedings are not governed by trial admissibility rules in the same manner as a criminal trial.
- Post-verdict challenges aimed at alleged evidentiary defects in grand jury proceedings rarely justify relief where the defendant was later convicted by a petit jury upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A prosecutor’s mention of polygraph-related information before a grand jury does not, by itself, require dismissal of the indictment, and the prosecutor is not required, as a prerequisite to indictment validity, to provide a special instruction that such information is hearsay or not admissible at trial.
- Under Rule 29, judgment of acquittal is inappropriate if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Under Rule 33, a new trial is an exceptional remedy; it is not granted unless the claimed error or set of errors shows that justice requires a new trial.

## Conclusion

United States v. Callahan holds that, after a conviction, the defendant was not entitled to dismissal of the indictment or a new trial based on the prosecutor’s reference to a failed polygraph examination during grand jury proceedings, nor was the prosecutor required to instruct the grand jury that the polygraph reference was hearsay; the court also found the evidence sufficient to sustain the kidnapping conviction and denied post-verdict relief.


United States v. Callahan, 442 F. Supp. 1213 (1978)