in re: grand jury proceedings v., 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 In Re: Grand Jury Proceedings v., 1st Cir. (2014)

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2498

I N RE: GRAND J URY PROCEEDI NGS

ON APPEAL FROM A J UDGMENT OF THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF RHODE I SLAND

[ Hon. J ohn J . McConnel l , J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howar d, Ci r cui t J udge,Souter *, Associ at e J ust i ce,and St ahl , Ci r cui t J udge.

Wi l l i am P. Devereaux, wi t h whom J ames W. Ryan, Mat t hew C.

Reeber , Mi st y G. Del gado and Pannone Lopes Devereaux & West LLCwer e on br i ef , f or appel l antDonal d C. Lockhar t , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Pet er F. Ner onha, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Febr uary 20, 2014

* Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/21

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. A vener abl e l egal Lat i ni sm, l ex

non cogi t ad i mpossi bi l i a, t eaches t hat t he l aw does not compel t he

i mpossi bl e. Gui ded by t hat august adage, we hol d t hat a subpoena

duces t ecumcompel l i ng t he pr oduct i on of document s t o a now- def unct

gr and j ur y cannot be enf or ced by ci vi l cont empt sanct i ons bef or e a

successor gr and j ur y, and we accor di ngl y vacat e t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s or der hol di ng t he appel l ant i n ci vi l cont empt . We r ej ect ,

however , t he appel l ant ' s addi t i onal cont ent i ons t hat t r i bal

sover ei gn i mmuni t y shi el ded i t f r omsubpoena and t hat t he subpoena

was unr easonabl y broad i n scope.

I.

Because thi s case i s under seal , we pr ovi de onl y a

cur sory r ehear sal of t he f act s. On Oct ober 2, 2012, appel l ant

Nar r aganset t I ndi an Tr i bal Hi st or i c Pr eser vat i on Of f i ce ( "NI THPO")

was ser ved wi t h a subpoena duces t ecum i ssued by a gr and j ur y i n

t he Di st r i ct of Rhode I sl and t he pr evi ous mont h. 1 The subpoena

di r ect ed t he cust odi an of NI THPO' s r ecor ds t o appear bef or e t he

gr and j ur y wi t h a ser i es of document s on t he morni ng of Oct ober 24,

2012. Dur i ng t he cour se of ensui ng negot i at i ons wi t h NI THPO as t o

t he scope of t he subpoena, t he government r epeat edl y ext ended t he

r etur n date f or t he subpoena. When t hese negot i at i ons pr oved

1 Another subpoena duces t ecum, not at i ssue on thi s appeal ,was ser ved on t he Narr aganset t I ndi an Tr i be. The Tr i be and NI THPOpr oceeded j oi nt l y i n r esi st i ng t hei r r espect i ve subpoenas unt i lSept ember 2013, at whi ch poi nt t he Tr i be compl i ed wi t h t he di st r i ctcour t ' s or der compel l i ng pr oduct i on of t he subpoenaed recor ds.

2


3/21

f r ui t l ess, t he gover nment ul t i mat el y set a r et ur n dat e of Febr uar y

27, 2013. On t he l ast day bef or e t hat deadl i ne, NI THPO i nf or med

t he government t hat i t woul d not pr oduce t he subpoenaed recor ds

bef or e t he gr and j ur y, asser t i ng i nt er al i a t hat t r i bal sover ei gn

i mmuni t y shi el ded i t f r om t he gr and j ur y' s subpoena power .

The si t t i ng grand j ury was subsequent l y di schar ged, and

a new gr and j ur y was empanel l ed i n i t s pl ace on Apr i l 16, 2013. On

May 9, t he gover nment moved t o compel NI THPO' s compl i ance wi t h t he

2012 subpoena, r epr esent i ng i n i t s mot i on t hat al t hough t he

subpoena had been i ssued by a pr evi ous gr and j ur y, t he

i nvest i gat i on had been t r ansf er r ed t o t he newl y- empanel l ed gr and

j ury. NI THPO obj ect ed t o t he gover nment ' s mot i on and moved t o

quash t he subpoena on gr ounds of t r i bal soverei gn i mmuni t y and

unr easonabl eness.

On August 2, t he di st r i ct cour t ent er ed an or der gr ant i ng

t he government ' s mot i on t o compel and, except f or some nar r owi ng of

t he scope of t he subpoena, denyi ng NI THPO' s mot i on t o quash. The

cour t ordered NI THPO t o "compl y wi t h the Oct ober 24, 2012 gr and

j ury subpoenas . . . at a mutual l y agr eed upon dat e and t i me wi t hi n

30 days. " 2 Af t er NI THPO' s cust odi an of r ecor ds f ai l ed t o appear on

t he agr eed- upon dat e, September 18, t he government moved f or a

cour t order r equi r i ng NI THPO t o show cause why i t shoul d not be

2 NI THPO f i l ed a mot i on f or r econsi der at i on of t hi s or der ,whi ch the di st r i ct cour t deni ed on Sept ember 16.

3


4/21

hel d i n ci vi l cont empt f or i t s noncompl i ance. The di st r i ct cour t

i ssued a show cause or der on Oct ober 22, and af t er a cont empt

hear i ng the f ol l owi ng mont h, adj udged NI THPO i n ci vi l cont empt and

i mposed a f i ne of $500 per day of noncompl i ance begi nni ng on

December 4. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

II.

NI THPO r ai ses t hr ee pr i mary argument s on appeal ,

cont endi ng t hat 1) t he under l yi ng subpoena was no l onger

enf or ceabl e f ol l owi ng t he di schar ge of t he i ssui ng gr and j ur y i n

Apr i l 2013; 2) NI THPO enj oyed t r i bal sover ei gn i mmuni t y f r om t he

gr and j ur y' s subpoena power ; and 3) t he subpoena was unr easonabl y

br oad i n scope under Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 17( c) ( 2) . We addr ess each

ar gument i n t ur n, r evi ewi ng de novo t he di st r i ct cour t ' s l egal

det er mi nat i ons as t o enf or ceabi l i t y and sover ei gn i mmuni t y, see

Pr oj ect B. A. S. I . C. v. Kemp, 947 F. 2d 11, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) , and

r evi ewi ng f or abuse of di scret i on t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on as

t o reasonabl eness under Rul e 17( c) ( 2) , see Uni t ed St at es v.

LaRouche Campai gn, 841 F. 2d 1176, 1179 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) .

A. Enforceability

I n r esponse to t he di st r i ct cour t ' s show cause or der ,

NI THPO cont ended unsuccessf ul l y t hat t he di st r i ct cour t coul d not

enf orce a subpoena i ssued by a def unct gr and j ur y. NI THPO r ai ses

t he same ar gument i n t hi s appeal , aver r i ng t hat ci vi l cont empt

sanct i ons f or noncompl i ance wi t h a subpoena cannot be i mposed

4


5/21

beyond t he l i f e of t he gr and j ur y under whose aegi s t he subpoena

was i ssued. The gover nment i n t ur n suggest s t hat ci vi l cont empt

sanct i ons ar e keyed t o t he l i f e of t he gr and j ur y f or whi ch t he

cont empt order was i ssued - - here, t he gr and j ur y empanel l ed on

Apr i l 16, 2013. The par t i es' ar gument s r est on di ver gent

i nt er pr et at i ons of t he appl i cabl e st at ut e and casel aw, t o whi ch we

pr esent l y t ur n.

We have descr i bed t he f ederal cour t s' cont empt power as

"one of t he most potent weapons i n t he j udi ci al armament ar i um. "

Pr oj ect B. A. S. I . C. , 947 F. 2d at 16. Al t hough t hat aut hor i t y was

not codi f i ed unt i l 1970, ci vi l cont empt sanct i ons " have been

empl oyed agai nst r ecal ci t r ant gr and j ur y wi t nesses si nce t he

ear l i est days of t he f eder al cour t s. " Dougl as C. Ber man, Not e,

Coer ci ve Cont empt and t he Federal Gr and J ur y, 79 Col um. L. Rev.

735, 735, 740 ( 1979) ; see al so, e. g. , Gompers v. Buck' s St ove &

Range Co. , 221 U. S. 418, 442 ( 1911) . Unl i ke cr i mi nal cont empt

sanct i ons, "i ncar cer at i on f or ci vi l cont empt i s not f or t he pur pose

of puni shi ng r ecal ci t r ant r espondent s but r at her i s t he moder n

' per suasi ve' t ool t hat i s used i n subst i t ut i on of t he bar bar i c

pl aci ng of st ones on t he subj ect ' s chest , whi ch was f or mer l y used

t o l i t er al l y pr ess t he r eci pi ent i nt o submi ssi on. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar quar do, 149 F. 3d 36, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . An

i mpr i soned ci vi l cont emnor i s t her ef or e sai d t o "car r [ y] t he keys

of hi s pr i son i n hi s own pocket . " Gomper s, 221 U. S. at 442

5


6/21

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n keepi ng wi t h t hi s coer ci ve

f unct i on, cour t s have l ong r ecogni zed t hat ci vi l cont empt sanct i ons

ar e necessar i l y l i mi t ed t o t he per i od i n whi ch t he cont emnor can

unl ock t he f i gur at i ve pr i son door by pur gi ng hi msel f of cont empt .

See, e. g. , Shi l l i t ani v. Uni t ed St at es, 384 U. S. 364, 371- 72

( 1966) ; Mar quar do, 149 F. 3d at 39- 40; I n r e Gr and J ur y Pr oceedi ngs

( Caucus Di st r i bs. , I nc. ) , 871 F. 2d 156, 161- 62 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Levi ne, 288 F. 2d 272, 274 ( 2d Ci r . 1961) ; Loubr i el

v. Uni t ed St at es, 9 F. 2d 807, 809 ( 2d Ci r . 1926) ( L. Hand, J . ) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Col l i ns, 146 F. 553, 554 ( D. Or . 1906) .

I n Shi l l i t ani , i nvol vi ng t wo consol i dat ed cases i n whi ch

t he di st r i ct cour t s or der ed r ecal ci t r ant gr and j ur y wi t nesses

i mpr i soned unt i l t hey pur ged t hei r cont umacy or unt i l t wo year s had

passed, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat t he two- year per i od of

conf i nement was i nappr opr i at e t o t he extent t hat i t exceeded t he

t er m of t he si t t i ng gr and j ur y. As t he Cour t expl ai ned,

t he j ust i f i cat i on f or coer ci ve i mpr i sonment asappl i ed to ci vi l cont empt depends upon theabi l i t y of t he cont emnor t o compl y wi t h t hecour t ' s or der . Wher e t he gr and j ur y has beenf i nal l y di schar ged, a cont umaci ous wi t ness canno l onger be conf i ned si nce he then has nof ur t her oppor t uni t y t o pur ge hi msel f ofcont empt . Accor di ngl y, t he cont empt or der s. . . wer e i mpr oper i nsof ar as t hey i mposed

sent ences t hat ext ended beyond the cessat i onof t he gr and j ur y' s i nqui r y i nt o pet i t i oner s'act i vi t i es. Havi ng sought t o deal onl y wi t hci vi l cont empt , t he Di st r i ct Cour t s l ackedaut hor i t y t o i mpr i son pet i t i oner s f or a per i odl onger t han t he t er m of t he gr and j ur y. . . .Once t he gr and j ur y ceases t o f unct i on, t he

6


7/21

r at i onal e f or ci vi l cont empt vani shes, and t hecont emnor has t o be r el eased.

384 U. S. at 371- 72 ( ci t at i on and f oot not e omi t t ed) . Shi l l i t ani

di d, however , l eave open t he possi bi l i t y of r ei t er at i ve cont empt

sanct i ons bef or e successi ve gr and j ur i es: t he Cour t expl ai ned i n a

f oot not e t hat al t hough any gi ven per i od of conf i nement f or ci vi l

cont empt coul d not l ast beyond t he t er mof t he si t t i ng gr and j ur y,

"sent ences of i mpr i sonment may be cont i nued or r ei mposed i f t he

wi t nesses adher e t o t hei r r ef usal t o t est i f y bef or e a successor

gr and j ur y. " I d. at 371 n. 8.

Four year s af t er t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n

Shi l l i t ani , Congr ess enact ed Ti t l e I I I of t he Or gani zed Cr i me

Cont r ol Act , Pub. L. No. 91- 452, 84 St at . 922, 932 ( 1970) ( codi f i ed

at 28 U. S. C. 1826) , i n an endeavor t o "codi f y pr esent ci vi l

cont empt pr act i ce wi t h r espect t o r ecal ci t r ant wi t nesses i n f eder al

gr and j ur y and cour t pr oceedi ngs, " H. R. Rep. No. 91- 1549, at 4008

( 1970) . 3 Sect i on 1826( a) pr ovi des:

Whenever a wi t ness i n any pr oceedi ng bef ore oranci l l ar y t o any cour t or gr and j ur y of t heUni t ed St at es r ef uses wi t hout j ust cause shownt o compl y wi t h an or der of t he cour t t ot est i f y or pr ovi de ot her i nf or mat i on,i ncl udi ng any book, paper , document , r ecor d,

3 Repr esent at i ve Pof f , a House sponsor of t he l egi sl at i on,st r essed i t s consi st ency wi t h t he t r adi t i onal l i mi t at i ons on ci vi lcont empt r ecogni zed i n Shi l l i t ani : " [ U] pon t he t er mi nat i on of t hepr oceedi ngs at whi ch t he wi t ness was order ed t o t est i f y, t hewi t ness i s ent i t l ed t o hi s r el ease because he coul d no l onger obeyt he cour t ' s or der i f he wi shed t o do so. " 116 Cong. Rec. 35291( 1970) .

7


8/21

r ecor di ng or ot her mat er i al , t he cour t , uponsuch r ef usal , or when such r ef usal i s dul ybr ought t o i t s at t ent i on, may summar i l y or derhi s conf i nement at a sui t abl e pl ace unt i l sucht i me as t he wi t ness i s wi l l i ng t o gi ve sucht est i mony or pr ovi de such i nf or mat i on. No

per i od of such conf i nement shal l exceed t hel i f e of -

( 1) t he cour t pr oceedi ng, or( 2) t he t erm of t he grand j ury,

i ncl udi ng ext ensi ons,bef or e whi ch such r ef usal t o compl y wi t h t hecour t or der occur r ed, but i n no event shal lsuch conf i nement exceed ei ght een mont hs.

The par t i es di sput e t he si gni f i cance of bot h Shi l l i t ani

and 1826( a) i n t hi s case. Thei r shar pest di ssensus, however ,

concer ns t he i mpor t of our hol di ng i n Caucus Di st r i but or s, i n whi ch

we r el i ed on bot h Shi l l i t ani and 1826( a) t o hol d t hat ci vi l

cont empt f i nes coul d not extend "beyond t he l i f e of t he or i gi nal

gr and j ur y" and i nt o t he t er m of a successor gr and j ur y. 871 F. 2d

at 161. Our hol di ng r est ed on Shi l l i t ani ' s concl usi on t hat t he

j ust i f i cat i on f or coer ci ve ci vi l cont empt vani shes when t he

cont emnor can no l onger pur ge hi msel f :

Per haps our most si gni f i cant di f f i cul t yl i es i n cont empl at i ng how, when wi t nesses havebeen subpoenaed, as her e, bot h ' t o appear. . . t o t est i f y' and t o br i ng document s t o aspeci f i c gr and j ur y and t hat j ur y has beendi schar ged, a cour t woul d handl e at t empt s t opur ge. . . . [ A] cour t woul d be pl aced i n t heanomal ous posi t i on of determi ni ng whether t he

r esponse of a wi t ness i n suppl yi ng or f ai l i ngt o suppl y document s f aci l i t at ed or f r ust r at edt he wor k of a gr and j ur y t hat no l ongerexi sted. . . . Par t i cul ar l y s i nce i t woul d ber el at i vel y si mpl e - - and cl ear cut - - f or asuccessor gr and j ur y t o r ei mpose coer ci ve

8


9/21

sanct i ons, we pr ef er not t o ent er t hi st hi cket .

I d. at 162.

The gover nment suggest s t hat Caucus Di st r i but or s i s

di st i ngui shabl e f r omt hi s case i n t hat bot h t he under l yi ng subpoena

and the subsequent cont empt order were i ssued dur i ng t he t erm of

t he f i r st gr and j ur y. I n i t s est i mat i on, t he "or i gi nal " gr and j ur y

cont empl at ed i n Caucus Di st r i but or s i s t he one bef or e whi ch t he

subpoena was enf or ced vi a cont empt sanct i ons ( her e, t he st i l l -

empanel l ed second gr and j ur y) ; NI THPO, by cont r ast , i mpl i es t hat

Caucus Di st r i but or s i nst ead f ocused on the gr and j ur y under whose

auspi ces t he under l yi ng subpoena was i ssued i n t he f i r st pl ace

( her e, t he def unct f i r st gr and j ur y) .

We f i nd Caucus Di st r i but or s i nconcl usi ve on t hi s poi nt .

Moreover , al t hough t he government hi ghl i ght s t he l anguage of

1826( a) l i mi t i ng conf i nement t o " t he t er mof t he gr and j ur y . . .

bef or e whi ch such r ef usal t o compl y wi t h t he cour t or der occur r ed, "

we concl ude t hat 1826( a) al so does not addr ess t he pr eci se

quest i on pr esent ed i n t hi s case. The i ssue bef or e us i s not t he

pr oper dur at i on of t he cont empt order i mposed dur i ng t he second

gr and j ur y' s t er m, but r at her whet her t hat cont empt or der , based on

NI THPO' s f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h a pr evi ous gr and j ur y' s subpoena,

was pr oper l y i ssued at al l .

The gover nment ' s posi t i on i s not wi t hout some suppor t i n

t he casel aw. Conf r ont ed wi t h a case si mi l ar t o t hi s one, i n whi ch

9


10/21

an i ni t i al gr and j ur y i ssued a subpoena duces t ecum and t he

di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he gover nment ' s mot i on t o compel compl i ance

dur i ng t he t er m of a successor gr and j ur y, t he D. C. Ci r cui t

di st i ngui shed our hol di ng i n Caucus Di st r i but or s and hel d t hat t he

f i r st gr and j ur y' s subpoena coul d be enf or ced dur i ng t he t er m of

t he successor gr and j ur y. I n r e Seal ed Case, 223 F. 3d 775, 778

( D. C. Ci r . 2000) . I n t he D. C. Ci r cui t ' s vi ew, because t he

successor gr and j ur y had " i ndi sput abl y car r i ed t he i nvest i gat i on

f or war d, " t he concer ns t hat we had st at ed i n Caucus Di st r i but or s

about determi ni ng "when an i nvest i gat i on has ceased" were not

i mpl i cat ed. I d. ( ci t i ng Caucus Di st r i bs. , 871 F. 2d at 161)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The D. C. Ci r cui t , l i ke t he gover nment on t hi s appeal ,

al so poi nt ed t o our obser vat i on i n Caucus Di st r i but or s t hat "a

subpoena i ssued by one gr and j ur y may be used t o obtai n evi dence

f or a second gr and j ur y. " Caucus Di st r i bs. , 871 F. 2d at 160

( ci t i ng I n r e Gr and J ur y Pr oceedi ngs ( Sut t on) , 658 F. 2d 782, 783

( 10t h Ci r . 1981) ( uphol di ng a di st r i ct cour t or der commandi ng

del i ver y of document s subpoenaed by an expi r ed gr and j ur y) ) . That

i sol at ed sent ence, however , cannot bear t he wei ght pl aced upon i t .

Because t he government i n Caucus Di st r i but ors di d not move t o

compel compl i ance bef ore the second gr and j ur y, we di d not have

occasi on, as we do now, t o det er mi ne the enf or ceabi l i t y of t he

f i r st gr and j ur y' s subpoena bef or e a successor gr and j ur y. I ndeed,

10


11/21

we ci t ed Sut t on f or t hi s pr oposi t i on onl y i n descr i bi ng t he

underpi nni ng of t he government ' s unsuccess f ul argument i n Caucus

Di st r i but or s. As an "obser vat i on[ ] . . . not essent i al t o t he

det er mi nat i on of t he l egal quest i ons t hen bef or e t he cour t , " t hi s

st at ement i s t her ef or e non- bi ndi ng di ct a. Ar cam Phar m. Cor p. v.

Far a, 513 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ; see al so Dedham Wat er Co. , I nc. v. Cumber l and Far ms

Dai r y, I nc. , 972 F. 2d 453, 459 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . 4

To t he ext ent t hat Sut t on and Seal ed Case approve t he use

of t he cont empt power i n t he ci r cumst ances now bef ore us, we

di sagr ee wi t h t hose deci si ons. Such a r ul e, al l owi ng t he

i mposi t i on of cont empt sanct i ons even where a cont emnor i s unabl e

t o pur ge hi msel f of cont umacy bef ore t he subpoenai ng gr and j ur y,

woul d vi t i at e t he coer ci ve r at i onal e f or ci vi l cont empt . The

4 The government al so poi nts t o cases i n whi ch we have hel dt hat t he gover nment can t r ansf er mat er i al s pr esent ed bef or e onegr and j ur y t o a successor gr and j ur y. See, e. g. , I n r e Uni t edSt at es, 441 F. 3d 44, 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cont ent i ,735 F. 2d 628, 631 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) . These cases ar e not germanet o the quest i on pr esent ed here, however , as t hey addr ess whetherevi dence al r eady obt ai ned by t he f i r st gr and j ur y i s t r ansf er abl et o the second gr and j ur y, not whether t he second gr and j ur y canobt ai n new evi dence by enf or ci ng i t s pr edecessor ' s subpoena.

We al so f i nd di st i ngui shabl e t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t ' s deci si on i nUni t ed St at es v. St evens, 510 F. 2d 1101, 1106 ( 5t h Ci r . 1975) .

Al t hough St evens uphel d a ci vi l cont empt order based on t heappel l ant ' s noncompl i ance wi t h a pr evi ous grand j ur y' s subpoena,t he f i r st gr and j ur y' s subpoena had expr essl y or der ed t he appel l antt o t est i f y bef or e t he second gr and j ur y af t er i t s empanel ment .St evens t her ef or e addr essed t he di st i nct quest i on of whet her t hef i r st gr and j ur y was aut hor i zed t o or der t he appel l ant ' s"appear ance bef or e a gr and j ur y not yet empanel l ed. " I d. at 1104.

11


12/21

second gr and j ur y may have t aken up t he i nvest i gat i on, but t he

subpoena was i ssued i n t he name of , and ordered t he pr oduct i on of

r ecor ds bef or e, t he f i r st gr and j ur y at a speci f i ed dat e and t i me.

As J udge Hand st at ed i n Loubr i el , NI THPO' s "dut y [ t o t est i f y] . . .

was measured by the subpoena, t he onl y process under whi ch [ NI THPO]

coul d be r equi r ed t o appear and t o t est i f y at al l . " 9 F. 2d at 809.

That subpoena "di d not r equi r e [ NI THPO' s] at t endance bef or e any

ot her t han t he [ Oct ober 2012] gr and j ur y. " I d. ; see al so I n r e

Gr and J ur y, August , 1965 ( McCl i nt ock Mer chant i l e Co. ) , 360 F. 2d

917, 918 ( 7t h Ci r . 1966) ( f i ndi ng "no basi s f or anxi et y t hat t he

r espondent can be r equi r ed t o appear . . . bef ore some other gr and

j ury" under a subpoena "di r ect [ i ng] at t endance on a cer t ai n day, at

a cer t ai n hour , bef or e t he August t er m, 1965 of t he gr and j ur y") .

I t f ol l ows as a mat t er of l ogi c t hat NI THPO coul d onl y compl y wi t h

t he subpoena so l ong as t he i ssui ng gr and j ur y was i n exi st ence.

I n t hi s case, t he subpoenai ng gr and j ur y was dead t o

begi n wi t h. 5 I t had expi r ed even bef ore t he government moved t o

compel compl i ance wi t h i t s subpoena. The di st r i ct cour t ' s or der

gr ant i ng t he mot i on t o compel t her ef or e ran af oul of t he maxi m" l ex

non cogi t ad i mpossi bi l i a" - - l i t er al l y, "[ t ] he l aw does not compel

t o i mpossi bl e ends, "6 Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 1844 ( 9t h ed. 2009) .

5 Cf . Char l es Di ckens, A Chr i st mas Car ol ( 1843) .

6 Thi s pr i nci pl e i s di scussed mor e t hor oughl y i n Her ber tBr oom, A Sel ect i on of Legal Maxi ms 237- 46 ( 6t h ed. 1884) . I t i sperhaps most f ami l i ar l y embodi ed i n t he common- l aw cont r act ual

12


13/21

See Col l i ns, 146 F. at 554. NI THPO coul d not pr oduce document s

bef or e a gr and j ur y t hat no l onger exi st ed, and t her ef or e "coul d,

of cour se, be no l onger compel l ed t o di schar ge a dut y whi ch had

ended. " Loubr i el , 9 F. 2d at 809; see al so I n r e Gr and J ur y

Proceedi ngs, Thur sday Speci al Gr and J ur y Sept . Ter m, 1991, 33 F. 3d

342, 347 ( 4t h Ci r . 1994) ( "The subpoenas i ssued by t he Sept ember

Term1991 grand j ury . . . cl ear l y do not have f or ce as a r esul t of

t he expi r at i on of t hat gr and j ur y. ") ; accor d I n r e Speci al

I nvest i gat i on No. 195, 454 A. 2d 843, 846 ( Md. 1983) ( "The gr and

j ury was dead. Ther e was no one t o whom t he subpoena was

r et ur nabl e. . . . I t t hus was i mpossi bl e t o enf or ce t he

subpoena. " ) .

The i mpossi bi l i t y of compl i ance i n t urn l ef t NI THPO

unabl e t o pur ge i t sel f of cont empt . The pr over bi al key i n NI THPO' s

pocket f i t a l ock t hat no l onger exi st ed. Cf . Gomper s, 221 U. S. at

442. We accor di ngl y t ake gui dance f r om Shi l l i t ani ' s di ct at e t hat

ci vi l cont empt sanct i ons are i nappr opr i ate when a cont emnor "has no

f ur t her oppor t uni t y t o pur ge hi msel f of cont empt . " 384 U. S. at

doct r i ne of i mpossi bi l i t y, whi ch excuses a par t y' s cont r act ualper f ormance "[ w] here t he means of per f ormance have been nul l i f i ed,maki ng per f or mance obj ect i vel y i mpossi bl e. " 30 Wi l l i st on on

Cont r act s 77: 25 ( 4t h ed. 2013) ; see al so, e. g. , Tayl or v.Cal dwel l , 122 E. R. 309, 314 ( K. B. 1863) ( "The pr i nci pl e seems t o ust o be that , i n cont r act s i n whi ch t he per f or mance depends on t hecont i nued exi st ence of a gi ven per son or t hi ng, a condi t i on i si mpl i ed t hat t he i mpossi bi l i t y of per f or mance ar i si ng f r om t heper i shi ng of t he per son or t hi ng shal l excuse t he per f or mance. " ) ;The Tornado, 108 U. S. 342, 351 ( 1883) ( appl yi ng r ul e of Tayl or ) .

13


14/21

371. Because i t was i mpossi bl e f or NI THPO t o pur ge i t sel f of

cont empt , t he cont empt order ser ved no coer ci ve pur pose and was

t her ef or e i mpr oper l y ent er ed. See Loubr i el , 9 F. 2d at 809

( f ol l owi ng di schar ge of t he subpoenai ng gr and j ur y, appel l ant

"coul d not be l awf ul l y det ai ned t her eaf t er , mer el y t o compel

compl i ance wi t h t he subpoena" ) ; Sar a Sun Beal e et al . , Gr and J ur y

Law and Pr act i ce 11: 17 ( 2d. ed. 2013) ( " [ T] he wi t ness' s

conf i nement cannot l ast l onger t han t he sessi on of t he gr and j ur y

bef ore whi ch t he wi t ness was subpoenaed, because t he t ermi nat i on of

t he gr and j ur y' s sessi on ends t he wi t ness' s abi l i t y t o compl y wi t h

t he cour t ' s or der , and t hus ends t he possi bl e coer ci ve ef f ect of

t he ci vi l cont empt sanct i on. " ) ; see al so Levi ne, 288 F. 2d at 274.

I n part i ng, we note t hat t he government has argued t hat

t hi s concl usi on woul d est abl i sh "an ar bi t r ar y and f or mal i st i c rul e

r equi r i ng r ei ssuance of subpoenas upon each t r ansf er between gr and

j ur i es, " whi ch "mer el y cr eates a t r ap f or t he unwar y prosecutor and

an i ncent i ve f or woul d- be cont emnor s t o engage i n del ayi ng t act i cs,

as happened her e. " Of concer n t o us, however , i s t hat t he

gover nment ' s pr oposed al t er nat i ve - - al l owi ng r ei t er at i ve ci vi l

cont empt sanct i ons bef or e f ut ur e gr and j ur i es based on

noncompl i ance wi t h an ol d subpoena - - woul d render t he gr and j ur y

subpoena pr ocess al l but meani ngl ess. Par t i cul ar l y si nce we and

other cour t s have l ong r ecogni zed t hat a pr osecut or may si mpl y

"obt ai n subpoenas i ssued i n bl ank by t he cour t , f i l l i n t he bl anks,

14


15/21

and have t he wi t nesses ser ved wi t hout consul t i ng t he gr and j ur y, "

I n r e Mel vi n, 546 F. 2d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 1976) - - a poi nt t hat t he

gover nment i t sel f st r esses on t hi s appeal - - we see no gr eat

admi ni st r at i ve di f f i cul t y i n r equi r i ng, as a pr econdi t i on t o t he

use of coer ci ve cont empt power , t he i ssuance of a new subpoena f or

each new gr and j ur y. I f t he cur r ent gr and j ur y or a successor

desi r es i nf or mat i on f r oma recal ci t r ant NI THPO, t he gover nment need

do no more t han obt ai n a new, enf orceabl e subpoena. That i s a

smal l pr i ce to pay f or access t o "one of t he most pot ent weapons i n

t he j udi ci al ar mament ar i um. " Pr oj ect B. A. S. I . C. , 947 F. 2d at 16.

B. Tribal Sovereign Immunity

Al t hough our hol di ng t hat t he expi r ed gr and j ur y' s

subpoena was unenf orceabl e woul d or di nar i l y r ender NI THPO' s

r emai ni ng chal l enges moot , t hi s case f al l s wi t hi n t he "capabl e of

r epet i t i on yet evadi ng r evi ew" except i on t o t he moot ness doct r i ne.

As f ormul ated by t he Supr eme Cour t , t he except i on appl i es where

"( 1) t he chal l enged act i on was i n i t s dur at i on t oo shor t t o be

f ul l y l i t i gat ed pr i or t o i t s cessat i on or expi r at i on, and ( 2) t her e

was a r easonabl e expect at i on t hat t he same compl ai ni ng part y woul d

be subj ect ed t o t he same act i on agai n. " Wei nst ei n v. Br adf or d, 423

U. S. 147, 149 ( 1975) ; see al so, e. g. , ACLU of Mass. v. U. S.

Conf er ence of Cat hol i c Bi shops, 705 F. 3d 44, 57 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Bot h cri t er i a ar e sat i sf i ed her e. Fi r st , t he cur r ent gr and j ur y i s

cont i nui ng i t s pr edecessor ' s i nvest i gat i on and, i n l i ght of our

15


16/21

hol di ng t oday, can r easonabl y be expect ed t o i ssue a new subpoena

t o NI THPO. Second, accor di ng t o t he gover nment ' s br i ef , t he

cur r ent gr and j ur y i s pr esent l y set t o expi r e i n Apr i l 2014,

l eavi ng t oo shor t a per i od of t i me t o f ul l y l i t i gat e a new

subpoena' s val i di t y. See Thur sday Speci al Gr and J ur y Sept . Ter m,

1991, 33 F. 3d at 347 ( f i ndi ng an expi r ed gr and j ur y' s subpoenas

unenf or ceabl e, but hol di ng t hat appel l ant s' obj ect i ons t o t he

subpoenas' val i di t y wer e capabl e of r epet i t i on yet evadi ng r evi ew) ;

see al so I n r e Seal ed Case, 877 F. 2d 976, 981 n. 6 ( D. C. Ci r . 1989) .

We theref ore tur n t o NI THPO' s ar gument t hat , as a br anch of t he

Narr aganset t I ndi an Tr i be, i t was i mmune to subpoena.

Proceedi ng on t he assumpt i on t hat NI THPO i s an armof t he

Nar r aganset t I ndi an Tr i be whose sover ei gn i mmuni t y i s coextensi ve

wi t h t hat of t he t r i be (a pr emi se t hat t he gover nment does not

di sput e on appeal ) , t he di st r i ct cour t never t hel ess det er mi ned t hat

t r i bal soverei gn i mmuni t y di d not oper at e as a bar t o t he gr and

j ury' s subpoena power . On appeal , NI THPO assi gns er r or t o t hat

concl usi on, ar gui ng that t he subpoena "const i t ut e[ d] a

nonper mi ssi bl e i nt r usi on i nt o t he i nt er nal af f ai r s of a f eder al l y

r ecogni zed t r i be, and t hus, [ t hat ] i t s enf or cement woul d vi ol at e

t r i bal sover ei gn i mmuni t y. "

The Supreme Cour t has descr i bed I ndi an t r i bes as "uni que

aggr egat i ons possessi ng at t r i but es of sover ei gnt y over bot h t hei r

members and t hei r t er r i t or y, " Mont ana v. Uni t ed St ates, 450 U. S.

16


17/21

544, 563 ( 1981) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , i ncl udi ng

sover ei gn i mmuni t y f r om sui t , see Ki owa Tr i be of Okl a. v. Mf g.

Techs. , I nc. , 523 U. S. 751, 754 ( 1998) . Never t hel ess , t he Cour t

has been "car ef ul t o not e t hat , t hr ough t hei r or i gi nal

i ncor por at i on i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es as wel l as t hr ough speci f i c

t r eat i es and st at ut es, t he I ndi an t r i bes have l ost many of t he

at t r i but es of sover ei gnt y. " Mont ana, 450 U. S. at 563; see al so

Washi ngt on v. Conf eder at ed Tr i bes of Col vi l l e I ndi an Reservat i on,

447 U. S. 134, 154 ( 1980) ( " [ T] r i bal sover ei gnt y i s dependent on,

and subor di nat e t o, [ ] t he Feder al Gover nment . . . . " ) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. U. S. Fi d. & Guar . Co. , 309 U. S. 506, 512 ( 1940) ( "I t i s

as t hough t he i mmuni t y whi ch was [ t he t r i bes' ] as sover ei gns passed

t o t he Uni t ed St at es f or t hei r benef i t , as t hei r t r i bal pr oper t i es

di d. " ) .

Ot her ci r cui t s have accor di ngl y r ecogni zed t he Uni t ed

St at es as a super i or sover ei gn f r omwhose sui t s t he t r i bes enj oy no

sover ei gn i mmuni t y, see, e. g. , Mi ccosukee Tr i be of I ndi ans of Fl a.

v. Uni t ed St at es, 698 F. 3d 1326, 1331 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) ; Rei ch v.

Mashant ucket Sand & Gr avel , 95 F. 3d 174, 182 ( 2d Ci r . 1996) ;

Qui l eut e I ndi an Tr i be v. Babbi t t , 18 F. 3d 1456, 1459 ( 9t h Ci r .

1994) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Red Lake Band of Chi ppewa I ndi ans, 827 F. 2d

380, 382- 83 ( 8t h Ci r . 1987) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Yaki ma Tr i bal Cour t ,

806 F. 2d 853, 861 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Whi t e Mount ai n

Apache Tr i be, 784 F. 2d 917, 920 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) , even where

17


18/21

Congr ess has not speci f i cal l y abr ogat ed t he t r i bes' i mmuni t y, see

EEOC v. Peabody W. Coal Co. , 400 F. 3d 774, 781 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) .

Even assumi ng arguendo t hat t he enf orcement of a subpoena

r epr esent s a "sui t " agai nst a t r i be f or pur poses of sover ei gn

i mmuni t y ( a pr emi se t hat t he government cont est s) , we f i nd no

r eason t o depar t f r om t hi s bedr ock pr i nci pl e, and accor di ngl y

concl ude t hat t r i bal sover ei gn i mmuni t y pr ovi des no r ef uge f r omt he

subpoena power of a f ederal gr and j ur y.

For t he sake of compl et eness , we f ur t her not e t hat , even

i f t he t r i bes di d or i gi nal l y enj oy sover ei gn i mmuni t y f r omf eder al

gr and j ur y pr ocess , Congr ess has abr ogated t hat i mmuni t y t hr ough

t he enact ment of f eder al cr i mi nal st at ut es ext endi ng t o I ndi an

count r y "t he gener al l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es as t o t he puni shment

of of f enses commi t t ed i n any pl ace wi t hi n t he sol e and excl usi ve

j ur i sdi ct i on of t he Uni t ed Stat es. " 18 U. S. C. 1152; see al so i d.

1153 ( est abl i shi ng f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on over maj or cr i mes

commi t t ed i n I ndi an count r y) . That gr ant of cr i mi nal j ur i sdi ct i on

necessar i l y ent ai l s t he aut hor i zat i on of i nvest i gat i ve and

enf orcement mechani sms such as t he grand j ury subpoena power . See

I n r e Long Vi si t or , 523 F. 2d 443, 446- 47 ( 8t h Ci r . 1975) ( " [ T] he

extensi on by Congr ess of f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on t o cr i mes commi t t ed

on I ndi an r eser vat i ons i nher ent l y i ncl udes ever y aspect of f eder al

cr i mi nal pr ocedur e appl i cabl e t o t he pr osecut i on of such cr i mes. " ) ;

Uni t ed St ates v. Boggs, 493 F. Supp. 1050, 1054 (D. Mont . 1980)

18


19/21

( st at i ng t hat t r i bal sover ei gn i mmuni t y f r om gr and j ur y pr ocess

woul d r ender I ndi an cr i mi nal st at ut es "al most uni ver sal l y

unenf or ceabl e" ) ; cf . Nar r aganset t I ndi an Tr i be v. Rhode I sl and, 449

F. 3d 16, 22, 26- 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( en banc) ( hol di ng t hat t he

Nar r aganset t Tr i be wai ved i t s sover ei gn i mmuni t y f r omt he execut i on

of a st at e sear ch war r ant by ent er i ng i nt o a l and cl ai ms set t l ement

pr ovi di ng t hat "al l l aws of t he St at e of Rhode I sl and shal l be i n

f ul l f or ce and ef f ect on t he set t l ement l ands") .

C. Reasonableness

NI THPO l ast l y ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have

quashed t he subpoena as unr easonabl y broad and bur densome. Fed. R.

Cr i m. P. 17( c) ( 2) aut hor i zes a di st r i ct cour t t o quash or modi f y a

subpoena " i f compl i ance woul d be unr easonabl e or oppr essi ve. " A

subpoena i s presumed t o be reasonabl e, and t he reci pi ent bear s t he

bur den of est abl i shi ng i t s unr easonabl eness. Uni t ed St at es v. R.

Ent er s. , I nc. , 498 U. S. 292, 301 ( 1991) .

As modi f i ed by t he di st r i ct cour t , t he subpoena duces

t ecum seeks f i f t een cat egor i es of document s spanni ng a f i ve- year

per i od, i ncl udi ng, i nt er al i a, cont r act s and cor r espondence bet ween

NI THPO and government ent i t i es, payr ol l r ecor ds and document s

concer ni ng NI THPO empl oyees and cont r act ors, and meet i ng mi nut es.

Ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gur ul e, 437 F. 2d 239, 241 ( 10t h Ci r . 1970) ,

f or t he thr eef ol d pr oposi t i on t hat " ( 1) t he subpoena may command

onl y t he pr oduct i on of t hi ngs r el evant t o t he i nvest i gat i on bei ng

19


20/21

pur sued; ( 2) speci f i cat i on of t hi ngs t o be pr oduced must be made

wi t h r easonabl e par t i cul ar i t y; and ( 3) pr oduct i on of r ecor ds

cover i ng onl y a reasonabl e t i me may be r equi r ed, " NI THPO avers t hat

t he subpoena duces t ecumi s def i ci ent under t he l at t er t wo pr ongs,

nei t her speci f yi ng the document s t o be pr oduced wi t h "r easonabl e

par t i cul ar i t y" nor "cover i ng onl y a r easonabl e t i me. "

Di st r i ct cour t s mi ght i ndeed reach di ver gent concl usi ons

as t o t he r easonabl eness of t hi s subpoena, but t hat i s not t he

st andar d of r evi ew on appeal . Revi ewi ng onl y f or abuse of

di scr et i on, see LaRouche Campai gn, 841 F. 2d at 1179, we thi nk t hat

t he deni al of NI THPO' s Rul e 17( c) ( 2) mot i on f el l wi t hi n t he wi de

bour n of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di scr et i on. 7 NI THPO ul t i matel y does

l i t t l e more t han enumerate t he categor i es of r equest ed document s

and gener al l y pr ot est " [ t ] he sheer amount of t i me and r esour ces

t hat woul d be requi r ed t o compl y" wi t h t he subpoena duces t ecum.

But al l subpoenas demand some amount of t i me and resources f r om

t hei r r eci pi ent s, and absent a mor e speci f i c expl anat i on of how t he

bur den i n t hi s case i s unr easonabl e, we decl i ne t o di st ur b t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment . Cf . I n r e Gr and J ur y Pr oceedi ngs, 115

7 Gi ven t he st andar d of r evi ew, t he t wo appel l ate cases on

whi ch NI THPO r el i es, Uni t ed St ates v. Wencke, 604 F. 2d 607, 612( 9t h Ci r . 1979) , and Mar gol es v. Uni t ed St at es, 402 F. 2d 450, 451-52 ( 7t h Ci r . 1968) , ar e cruci al l y di st i ngui shabl e i n t hat t heymer el y hel d t hat quashi ng a subpoena was wi t hi n t he di st r i ctcour t ' s di scr et i on. That al one does not compel t he conver seconcl usi on t hat t he ref usal t o quash woul d have been an abuse ofdi scr et i on.

20


21/21

F. 3d 1240, 1244 ( 5t h Ci r . 1997) ( hol di ng t hat subpoena reci pi ent s

f ai l ed t o est abl i sh unr easonabl eness by " [ s] i mpl y ci t i ng t he t ypes

of i nf ormat i on sought by the government " ) .

As a l ast ef f or t , NI THPO al so r ei nt r oduces i t s t r i bal

sover ei gn i mmuni t y argument i n new garb, suggest i ng t hat " [ w] hat

const i t ut es an unr easonabl e i nt r usi on i nt o t he wor ki ngs of an

ent i t y i s cer t ai nl y di f f er ent . . . when t hat ent i t y i s a sover ei gn

nat i on t hat has r ecogni zed pr ot ect i ons f r om i nt er f er ence wi t h

i nt er nal t r i bal mat t er s. " We decl i ne NI THPO' s i nvi t at i on t o gr af t

sover ei gn i mmuni t y consi der at i ons ont o Rul e 17( c) ( 2) , and i n any

event , t hi s asser t i on l acks f or ce i n l i ght of our concl usi on i n

sect i on B supr a.

III.

For t he f oregoi ng r easons, we concl ude that t he subpoena

duces t ecum was unenf or ceabl e af t er t he expi r at i on of t he i ssui ng

gr and j ur y. We t her ef or e vacate t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der hol di ng

NI THPO i n ci vi l cont empt . I n t he event a subpoena si mi l ar i n scope

i s subsequent l y i ssued and NI THPO agai n chal l enges i t s val i di t y,

our hol di ngs on t r i bal sover ei gn i mmuni t y and r easonabl eness of t he

subpoena shal l appl y t o any such pr oceedi ng.

21

in re: grand jury proceedings v., 1st cir. (2014)

Documents