## Facts

- Edward Udziela, his brother Paul Udziela, and Bruce Nacker participated in a conspiracy to manufacture and distribute phencyclidine (PCP) beginning in December 1979.
- Paul and Nacker discussed producing PCP for profit; Nacker used his scientific background to obtain a formula and chemicals, produced a batch, and shared proceeds with Paul after sale.
- To increase production, Paul and Nacker ordered additional chemicals using fictitious names or others’ business names; Edward was aware of these clandestine activities and was present for some related discussions.
- A chemical supplier became suspicious and contacted the DEA, which monitored the group’s activities.
- Evidence presented to the grand jury included DEA Agent Lance Mrock’s testimony that Edward was present at an undercover chemical purchase, helped unload chemicals at Nacker’s garage, and remained there briefly.
- Coconspirator Nacker testified before the grand jury but later admitted he lied by minimizing and distorting parts of the conspiracy, including aspects of Edward’s involvement.
- On the day before trial, Nacker disclosed his grand jury perjury to prosecutors; the government promptly disclosed this information to the defense.
- At trial, Nacker testified again and directly implicated Edward in the conspiracy; Edward was convicted of conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846) and aiding and abetting PCP manufacture (18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).
- Mid-trial, Edward moved to dismiss the indictment as tainted by perjured grand jury testimony; the district court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment must be dismissed when perjured testimony was presented to the grand jury, the government did not know of the perjury at the time, and the perjury was disclosed after the grand jury was discharged but before trial.
2. Whether, upon such a disclosure, a district court must conduct an in camera review of grand jury materials to determine whether sufficient untainted evidence supports the indictment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and upheld denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment.
- The court found no basis for dismissal because the government neither knowingly presented nor sponsored the perjury and promptly disclosed it once discovered.
- The court concluded the indictment was supported by sufficient untainted evidence independent of the perjured testimony, including Agent Mrock’s observations and other investigative evidence.
- Prospectively, the court held that in future cases involving post-discharge, pretrial discovery of perjured grand jury testimony, the district court should conduct an in camera review of the grand jury record to assess whether untainted evidence supports the indictment, unless the government seeks a new indictment based only on untainted evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Perjured grand jury testimony does not automatically invalidate an indictment when the government lacked knowledge of the perjury, promptly disclosed it upon discovery, and the indictment rests on adequate untainted evidence.
- Dismissal of an indictment is an extraordinary remedy generally reserved for serious prosecutorial misconduct or defects that undermine the grand jury’s charging function.
- When perjury in grand jury proceedings is discovered after the grand jury is discharged but before trial, courts should protect the defendant’s interest in a valid probable-cause determination while preserving grand jury secrecy by using in camera review of grand jury materials.
- A conviction after a fair trial may render alleged grand jury-stage error insufficient to warrant reversal when the trial evidence is subject to adversarial testing and supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court held that Nacker’s perjury before the grand jury did not require dismissal of the indictment or reversal of Edward Udziela’s conviction because the government was not complicit, disclosed the perjury promptly, and the indictment was supported by sufficient untainted evidence; it also announced a prospective requirement for in camera judicial review of grand jury materials in similar pretrial perjury-disclosure cases unless the government obtains a new untainted indictment.


United States v. Udziela, 671 F.2d 995 (7th Cir. 1982)