Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ich Jent was entitled under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). After hearing argument, the court found that the defense had not laid a proper predicate for disclosure of grand jury testimony under the exceptions to section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...In a combined sentencing hearing both Jent and Miller received the death penalty. Miller v. State, No. 58,795 (Fla.). [2] Several witnesses referred to the victim as "Tammy." Her name has never been established more definitely. [3] Defense counsel stated that he was not alleging that they would commit perjury. [4] § 905.27(1), which allows disclosure of grand jury testimony for the purpose of: (a) Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court; (b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or (c) Furthering justice....

...Next, it appears from the record that the State witness Dietrich had testified before the grand jury of Pinellas County prior to the trial of this case. The appellants made two efforts to secure a transcript of Dietrich's grand jury testimony. Prior to the trial, appellants made a motion in accordance with F.S. § 905.27, F.S.A., for production of the transcript. F.S. § 905.27, F.S.A....

...he witness given before the court * * *." F.S. § 905.17, F.S.A. provides in part that transcriptions of testimony before a grand jury "shall be opened and released by the clerk upon the order of the trial judge for use pursuant to the provisions of § 905.27, [Florida Statutes] * * *." Later, at the trial, when the witness Dietrich was tendered to defense counsel for cross-examination, appellants presented to the court a sworn application for subpoena duces tecum to be directed to the official court reporter....

...The transcript was also used against all of the alleged conspirators named in Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, including King and Monk. In ruling on this motion to inspect the transcript of testimony of the grand jury we think perhaps the court may have overlooked the full effect of Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, as amended in 1951, F.S.A....

...ve a copy of the grand jury testimony given by Gordon, Busbee and Arnold which was placed in evidence against them by the State through the voice of the Court Reporter who transcribed the grand jury proceedings. Here again it should be observed that Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., gives special treatment to the crime of perjury in regard to the matter of raising the veil of secrecy that protects grand jury proceedings....

...narily be reached by the discovery process under our Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is so because of the bands of secrecy contemplated by the provisions of § 905.24 et seq., F.S.A. But this doesn't mean to say that they are not reachable at all. § 905.27, F.S.A....

...Motion to Interview Grand Jury Witnesses Murray also claims that, because the minutes of the grand jury proceeding were not recorded, he should be allowed to interview the one witness who testified and the prosecutor. He maintains that the trial court committed reversible error by not granting this request. We disagree. Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, permits limited disclosure of grand jury evidence for (1) determining the consistency of testimony; (2) determining whether perjury occurred; or (3) in furtherance of justice....

...See Section 905.26, Florida Statutes (1975). Secrecy serves in this context to prevent the flight of accused persons. Witnesses appearing before the grand jury must be free to tell what they know, without fear of having to answer elsewhere for their testimony. See Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes (1975) ("unlawful for any person knowingly to publish ......

...losure of the finding of an indictment by anyone privy to the grand jury proceedings prior to the arrest of the person indicted (Section 905.26); disclosure of testimony of any witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence received by it (Section 905.27); and publication of the report or presentment (Section 905.28)....

...motion to inspect the grand jury testimony of all the State's witnesses for the purpose of preparing his defense — assuming, arguendo, that his pre-trial motion was so considered by the trial judge, as here contended by the defendant. Our statute, § 905.27, Fla....

...testimony before the grand jury." (Emphasis added.) It is here contended on behalf of the defendant that "it was the duty of the trial judge, when the materiality of the testimony of the State Witness George Thomas had been made known to him, under Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to have read the Grand Jury testimony of George Thomas, to ascertain whether or not the ends of justice required him to order this testimony delivered to defense counsel for their inspection, before further c...

...the escape of a person indicted before he may be arrested; to prevent the subornation of perjury in an effort to disprove facts there testified to; and to protect the reputations of persons against whom no indictment may be found. Under our statute, § 905.27, supra, and the previous decisions of this court, it is settled that, when the purposes of the secrecy rule are accomplished and a disclosure becomes essential to the attainment of justice and the vindication of the truth, the rule of secrecy may be relaxed in the discretion of the court....

...e application of the exception. Appellant Jackman contends the trial court erred in denying his oral motion to require the state to produce the testimony given before the Grand Jury by the state's witness, Johnny Williams. The motion was grounded on § 905.27, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., and supported by the witness' admission on cross examination that he had lied under oath at an earlier trial. Section 905.27, supra, prohibits disclosure by certain persons of testimony given before a grand jury "except when required by a court to disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is...

...When this is apparent punishment for contempt might be justified. Indeed the Florida Legislature has by statute announced two situations in which grand jurors and, conceivably, an entire grand jury may be adjudged guilty of contempt. See Section 905.17 and Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...ame matters investigated by the state grand jury. Godbold, McQuaig, McClure, and Greene each indicated that he would assert the fifth amendment if subpoenaed to testify before the federal grand jury. Relying on the disclosure provisions of Fla.Stat. § 905.27(l)(c) (1985), 1 the United States in August 1985 petitioned a state judge to order the State Attorney to turn over to the federal grand jury the appellants’ state grand jury testimony....

...The appellants’ motions to intervene in the district court proceedings reveal the nature of the privilege they assert. Appellant McQuaig’s motion stated that “[pjrior to appearing before the [state] Grand Jury, Mr. McQuaig was advised by the State Attorney that pursuant to Section 905.27, Fla.Stat....

...ry proceedings were secret and confidential by virtue of the provisions of Chapter 905 of the Florida Statutes.” Appellant Godbold’s motion stated that “testimony was provided with the understanding on the part of Jake Godbold that pursuant to § 905.27 of the Florida Statutes, his testimony would not and could not be disclosed under the law.” Finally, appellant McClure’s motion stated that “[t]he substantial interest of Don McClure is equal to or greater than that of the two other p...

...a court to disclose the testimony for the purpose of: (a) Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court; (b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or (c) Furthering justice. Fla.Stat. § 905.27 (1985)....

...erance of the public justice. A witness before the grand jury has no privilege of having his testimony there treated as a confidential communication.... State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 167 So. 687, 690 (Fla.1936). Florida case law directly construing section 905.27 fails to provide a contrary interpretation of the relationship between the secrecy requirement and the rights of grand jury witnesses....

...See In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Doe), 831 F.2d 222 (11th Cir.1987). 4 . We should emphasize that this discussion relates only to appellants’ right to appeal under the Perlman exception. It does not relate to their standing to raise these claims before the district court. 5 . The remainder of section 905.27 provides as follows: (2) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, or communicate to any other person, or knowingly to cause or permit to be published, broadcast, disclosed, divulged, or communic...

...l or departure, but can only reference it to somewhere around lunch time.” During this appeal, Gosciminski filed a motion to supplement the record with the grand jury testimony. We ordered the grand jury testimony to be submitted under seal. Under section 905.27, Florida Statutes (2009), the disclosure of grand jury testimony is not permitted except under three limited circumstances: (1) to determine whether the grand jury testimony is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before...

...Wilcox additionally relies upon Trajfi-cante to contend that he was denied the right to compulsory process. In Traffi-cante, the defendants sought to secure a transcript of a State witness’s statement. 92 So.2d at 814 . Prior to the trial, the defendants presented a motion in accordance with section 905.27, Florida Statutes, for production of the transcript, but that motion was denied by the trial court....

...nd jury can be released are confined within very narrow limits. These uses under the governing statute are for proof of consistency of the testimony given by a witness, for proof of perjury, or for furtherance of justice when permitted by the court. Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., enunciates these allowable purposes: "905.27 Testimony not to be disclosed; exceptions....

...and arrests." The Supreme Court thus recognized, under the furtherance of justice principle, that *723 testimony of a witness before a grand jury may be revealed when it becomes material to the administration of justice, the same as does the quoted section 905.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. In applying this principle to support his position, appellee cites, in the main, section 905.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the case of State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, supra, 24 Am.Jur., Grand Jury, sections 842, 865, 867, and 868, and Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd ed., volume 8, sections 2360-2363, pp. 716-730. The authorities thus cited are in accord with section 905.27 and with the case of State ex rel....

...[1] The matters to be considered by the grand jury during their extended term involved the investigation of two governmental agencies. Appellant was first subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury on April 15, 1975, which was seeking information relating to a possible violation of section 905.27, F.S., [2] namely, a "leak" in its then continuing investigation under its extended order....

...ate release." Subsequently another subpoena was issued commanding appellant to appear before the grand jury on May 6, 1975. Appellant appeared, was again granted immunity and again refused to answer questions relating to a possible violation of sec. 905.27, on the same constitutional grounds heretofore cited....

...Measuring the instant case by the foregoing standard we are of the opinion that the questions propounded by the grand jury concerning "leaks" related directly to the sanctity and integrity of the grand jury function and hence were directly relevant and material to a possible violation of sec. 905.27....

...The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions that appellant be discharged. OWEN, J., and LEE, J. CAIL, Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] The 1974 Fall Term of the Brevard County Grand Jury, which was impaneled on October 8, 1974, was extended on March 20, 1975 to a period ending June 22, 1975. [2] Sec. 905.27, F.S., makes it unlawful to disclose grand jury testimony with certain exceptions and provides that a violation of that section constitutes a misdemeanor....

...jury but denied the motion insofar as it related to testimony given before the county solicitor. The trial court correctly granted defendant's motion for protective order as it related to testimony of the witness given before the grand jury. F.S.A. § 905.27; State v....

...To this he responds that he is in a Catch-22 situation, for he can't know what is in the minutes if they remain secret. Appellant argues that the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is not absolute; there is Florida case law on the subject, and the governing statute, section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1985), permits disclosure of grand jury evidence for determining consistency of a witness' testimony, determining whether a witness has perjured himself, or in the furtherance of justice....

...erk who shall keep them in a sealed container not subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions shall be released by the clerk *298 only on request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to § 905.27." Fla....

...special grand jury investigating allegations of corruption in the Charlotte County state attorney’s office and the sheriff’s department. When Smith testified, Austin’s staff warned him that any disclosure of his testimony would violate chapter 905.27 of the Florida Statutes....

...ng justice. (2) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, or communicate to any other person ... any testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury, or the content, gist, or import thereof.... Fla.Stat. § 905.27 (1985) (emphasis added). Any person who violates the statute is guilty of a first degree misdemeanor. § 905.927(4). A violation also constitutes criminal contempt. § 905.27(5)....

...y testimony was necessary to achieve the state’s interest in preserving the efficacy of grand jury proceedings, and that this interest sufficiently outweighed appellant’s rights under the first amendment. 678 F.Supp. 1552 . Appellant argues that section 905.27 is unconstitutionally overbroad, in that it prohibits any person appearing before the grand jury from ever disclosing matters testified to, even long after the investigation is terminated....

...s. Although the federal rule is not binding on any state, it illustrates that Florida’s goal of preserving the integrity of grand jury proceedings can be achieved without the imposition of a blanket prohibition on disclosure. We thus conclude that section 905.27 is unconstitutional insofar as it applies to witnesses who speak about the nature of their own grand jury testimony *1321 after the investigation has been completed....

...Wood, 297 So.2d 556, 559 (Fla.1974). The remainder of the statute accomplishes the legislature’s general intent of enhancing the integrity of the grand jury system by providing for the confidentiality of the proceedings. We therefore hold that the provisions of section 905.27 prohibiting “any other person” from disclosing the nature of grand jury testimony are unconstitutional to the extent that they apply to witnesses who speak about their own testimony after the grand jury investigation is terminated....

...Thus while there is no right to such pretrial inspection, Minton must, not be read to foreclose the possibility of a trial judge holding an in camera inspection prior to, rather than during, the course of the trial. Cf. Note, Discovery in Criminal Proceedings, 1960, 13 U.Fla.L.Rev. 242. This point is buttressed by Fla. Stat. § 905.27, 1967, F.S.A., forbidding disclosure of a witness's testimony or other evidence except when "permitted by the court in the furtherance of justice." Phrases similar to "in the furtherance of justice" are not strangers to this area of the law....

...905.17, F.S.A., which provides: "905.17 Who may be present during session of grand jury. — "(1) No person shall be present at the sessions of the grand jury except the witness under examination, the state attorney or his designated assistant, the court reporter or stenographer, and the interpreter." (Emphasis added.) and F.S. 905.27, F.S.A., which provides: "905.27 Testimony not to be disclosed: exceptions....

...idence received by it... ." (Emphasis added.) as authority for the proposition that grand jury testimony must be recorded. The reliance is misplaced. F.S. 905.17, F.S.A., refers to who may be present at grand jury sessions — rather than who must. F.S. 905.27, F.S.A., only provides exceptions to the secrecy rule of F.S....

...In the instant case, however, the subject indictment was proper, and should not have been quashed when no constitutional rights were abrogated, no Florida law was contravened and no request for recordation was made by Mrs. McArthur. If there is to be a change in what we conceive to be the clear provisions of F.S. 905.17 and 905.27, F.S.A., Laws of 1971, it is our view that such is within the proper sphere of the Legislature....

...following portions of the report: 1) the conclusion underscored above on the basis that it is improper because it is unsupported by the facts in the report and 2) the portions of the report referencing testimony of specific witnesses as violative of section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...that employee's conduct constituted gross neglect). The grand jury's conclusion was "proper" within the meaning of section 905.28(1). Officer Barber next contends that the disclosure of witnesses and the substance of their actual testimony violates section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1995). [3] Section 905.24, Florida Statutes (1995), mandates the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. State v. Pleas, 659 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Section 905.27 unambiguously declares that a grand juror shall not disclose a witness' grand jury testimony, unless one of the specific statutory exceptions applies. A grand jury report signed by the foreperson does not fall within one of these statutory exceptions. Section 905.27(2) bars the communication of the gist of a witness' grand jury testimony to anyone "in any manner whatsoever." Contrary to the state's argument, we can discern no legislative intent in the statute's clear language to carve out any exception for a grand jury report. Because portions of the grand jury report disclose grand jury testimony in violation of section 905.27, they are subject to expunction under section 905.28(1)....

...th the circuit court a motion to repress or expunge the report or that portion which is improper and unlawful. This exemption is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 119.14. (footnote omitted). [3] In pertinent part section 905.27 provides: (1) A grand juror, state attorney, assistant state attorney, reporter, stenographer, interpreter, or any other person appearing before the grand jury shall not disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jur...

...pts; since Judge Esquiroz was not present at the time he obtained the transcripts, the judge was not a witness to the contemptuous act and, consequently, may not hold Linowitz in direct criminal contempt. We reject this argument. Sections 905.24 and 905.27, Florida Statutes (1985) make all testimony and proceedings before the grand jury secret unless disclosure is ordered by the court, § 905.27(1)....

...he clerk who shall keep them in a sealed container not subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to § 905.27." and Section 905.19, which provides: "Duty of state attorney....

...hat secrecy is necessary to the efficient operation of the Grand Jury. (Clein v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1961, 52 So.2d 117) No less than four sections of the current Florida Statutes impose the secrecy requirement on Grand Jury proceedings. (F.S. 905.24-905.27) Only three exceptions to this requirement are mentioned in the Florida Statutes. (F.S. 905.27(1)(a), (b), (c)) Any other disclosure of Grand Jury proceedings is made unlawful and is punishable by a jail sentence of up to one year and/or a fine up to $5,000....

...Smith wants to report and publish a news story or book about activities of the state attorney's office which had become controversial during the year prior to his being subpoenaed. Any report or book would necessarily contain revelations prohibited by Section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1985) ("the Section" or "Section 905.27") because Smith intends to base his account, in part, upon his testimony and experience before the Special Grand Jury. Smith is concerned that, if he publishes any of the questions addressed to him or his answers, he will be criminally prosecuted pursuant to Section 905.27. Smith brings this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in order to acquire this Court's judgment that Section 905.27 presents an unconstitutional prior restraint and penal sanction on his First Amendment rights of free speech under the United States Constitution....

...574, 26 So.2d 638, 643 (1946), quoting State v. Armstrong, 127 Fla. 170, 172 So. 861, 862 (1937) (Terrell, J.). *1555 THE FIRST AMENDMENT Plaintiff argues that the State of Florida cannot demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in non-disclosure by grand jury witnesses, or that the Section 905.27 is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and no more restrictive than necessary....

...repressed. See Freeport Sch. Project, 544 So.2d at 1107 . It makes sense not to be overly rigid when evaluating factual support in the context of a grand jury presentment because of the confidentiality concerns underlying grand jury proceedings. See § 905.27....

...her attorney and her attorney’s staff; said injunction to remain in full force and effect until this court is convinced that such disclosure will not *59 interfere with the administration of justice. This order is to be read with conjunction with Section 905.27 of the Florida Statutes. A violation of this order or of Section 905.27, Florida Statute will constitute criminal contempt of court....

...When review of the second order became desirable, the better practice would have been to file a second petition for a writ of certiorari, not attempt to reopen a case seeking review of a quashed order. Nevertheless, we have considered the petitions on their merits. The second order does not appear to go any further than Section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1981). No conduct is illegal under this order that would not be also illegal under Section 905.27. The respondent has assured us that: [T]he new Order is but a public announcement of the restriction placed upon the members of the grand jury and the witnesses from speaking about the testimony and merely reflects the intent and purpose of § 905.27 Florida Statutes....

...We conclude that the newspapers are not “gagged”; nor is their access to news sources in any way limited by the respondent’s second order; nor is their ability to gather and publish news impaired or curtailed by the order, except as limited by Section 905.27....

...days in default of the payment of the said fine." This statute has now been superseded by § 775.081 (1973), but the change of language is not such as would affect the principles of Taulty, supra . [2] This statute may be contrasted with Fla. Stat. 905.27 (1973) which specifically provides that it shall constitute a misdemeanor to disclose testimony given before a grand jury. The State Attorney expressly disclaimed the suggestion that his interrogation was directed to a possible violation of Fla. Stat. 905.27.

...The State of Florida seeks certiorari review of a non-final order which granted a motion by a criminal defendant to disclose the grand jury testimony of a witness. Grand jury testimony ordinarily is kept secret, § 905.24, Fla. Stat. (2014), but exceptions apply. See § 905.27, Fla. Stat. (2014). The State argued that defendant had not asserted a sufficient predicate for disclosure. Alternatively, if the trial court found a sufficient predicate under section 905.27, the State argued that the trial court should examine the testimony in camera to determine its materiality....

...We grant the state's petition for writ of certiorari relating to an order granting respondent's motion for production of the witness list and minutes of the grand jury that indicted him. Grand jury proceedings are secret. § 905.24, Fla. Stat. (1993). Although respondent claims that the order was proper under section 905.27(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), which allows disclosure of grand jury proceedings in furtherance of justice, respondent's motion failed to make a strong showing of particularized need....

...The basis for prohibition as submitted by the suggestion is the contention that there is no criminal case pending before the respondent which would vest him with jurisdiction to enter such an order, and that therefore the purpose of the order does not come within the provisions of § 905.27, Fla.Stat....

Rule 9-101(b). The state also contends that section 905.27(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, *186regarding

GUNTHER, Chief Judge. The state has filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a trial court order declaring section 905.27, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), unconstitutional and requiring the state to produce transcripts of a grand jury proceeding....

...rand theft as a hate crime. Thereafter, Knight moved for production of the transcripts of all testimony before the grand jury pursuant to the Public Information Act. • In support of his motion, Knight argued that the October 1,1994 re-enactment of section 905.27 was unconstitutional. 1 The trial court agreed with Knight and declared the re-enacted section 905.27 unconstitutional because it faded to include a “public necessity statement” as outlined by Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution....

...ecessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the law. Thus, the foregoing section allows the legislature to exempt certain records from public disclosure so long as the law states “with specificity the public necessity justifying the exemption.” Section 905.27 permits disclosure of the substance of testimony heard before a grand jury if ordered by a court for certain identifiable reasons, including: (a) Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court; (b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or (c) Furthering justice. The re-enactment of section 905.27 did not set forth a statement of public necessity within the meaning of Article I, Section 24(c) *346 of the Florida Constitution. The trial court utilized this lack of a public necessity statement in declaring section 905.27 unconstitutional. The trial court, however, departed from the essential requirements of law in determining that section 905.27 was subject to the constitutional requirements set forth in Article I, Section 24. Section 905.27 does not provide a public records exemption for grand jury testimony; such an exemption is contained within section 905.17....

...nd jury] are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to s. 905.27....

...atly hamper the proper functioning of our grand jury system by eliminating the secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings and exposing the witnesses and grand jurors to potential retribution and outside influence. Ch. 94-74, § 2, Laws of Fla. Thus, section 905.27 clearly complies with the public necessity requirement contained in Article I, Section 24(e). In conclusion, the purpose of section 905.27 is to provide a limited exception to the public records exemption contained in section 905.17. Section 905.17 provides the general exemption from section 119.07 and thus is subject to the requirements of Article I, Section 24(c). While section 905.17 provides the general exemption for grand jury materials, section 905.27 merely encompasses an exception to the exemption contained in section 905.17.Nothing in Article I, Section 24 requires exceptions to a public record exemption to contain a public necessity statement. Thus, because section 905.27 does not provide an exemption to the public records requirement located at section 119.07, it is not subject to the requirements contained in Article I, Section 24(c). Accordingly, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in reaching a contrary determination and in declaring section 905.27 unconstitutional for lack of a public necessity statement. 2 The state’s petition for certiorari is granted and the trial court order under review is quashed. PETITION GRANTED. DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur. . Section 905.27 was part of the numerous statutes repealed on October 1, 1994, pursuant to the Open Government Sunset Review Act, located at section 119.14. That same day, the legislature re-enacted several statutes including section 905.27. The substance of section 905.27 remained the same after the 1994 re-enactment....

the provisions of § 905.27, but not otherwise. * * * ” (Emphasis added.) F.S.A. § 905.27 provides: “No *

...h has not been transcribed; and (iii) if there has been any electronic surveillance (including wiretapping) of conversations to which the accused was a party or of his premises.” However, the Florida counterpart deletes subsection (ii) ; See also, Section 905.27, F.S.

...of the Palm Beach Post (“the Post”), appeals a final judgment denying the Post’s request for access to the grand jury proceedings involving the late Jeffrey Epstein. The Post argues the final judgment should be reversed for three reasons: (1) section 905.27, Florida Statutes (2019), provides a private right of action for disclosure of grand jury materials; (2) the circuit court has the inherent power to regulate the use of grand juries; and (3) grand jury secrecy is not absolute. We agree with the Post in part, and reverse and remand the case. • The Trial Court Proceedings The Post filed a complaint against the state attorney and the clerk, requesting disclosure of the grand jury materials under section 905.27, Florida Statutes (2019)....

...Both defendants moved to dismiss. In response, the Post filed an amended complaint, adding a count for declaratory relief. Both defendants answered the amended complaint as to the declaratory relief count and moved to dismiss the count requesting grand jury materials under section 905.27....

...ed it “[was] in possession and/or control of documents.” The Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit heard the motions to dismiss. The Chief Judge stated: “I don’t think anybody is saying that there isn’t a cause of action [under section 905.27] or that the press doesn’t have standing.” Counsel for both the clerk and state attorney indicated they did not seek to “block access” to the records. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, ruling section 905.27 did not provide a private cause of action. Specifically, the order stated: “[T]he [c]ourt does not suggest The Post has no available mechanism to obtain a court order granting it access to the grand jury proceedings. The [c]ourt also does not render any opinion as to whether releasing these records is appropriate for the purpose of ‘furthering justice’ within the meaning of section 905.27.” The Post dropped the state attorney as a defendant. The clerk remained a nominal defendant as the records custodian. The Post moved for summary judgment, asserting the grand jury materials should be released under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in conjunction with section 905.27, which allows for the release of grand jury materials “in ....

...The clerk did not cross-move for summary judgment. The then-assigned trial court held a hearing and ultimately issued a final judgment dismissing the Post’s complaint, finding the court’s 2 inherent authority was constrained by section 905.27....

...Further, the trial court found it had “limited authority to order the release of grand jury records” regardless of “how palatable and persuasive [the Post’s] arguments may be.” Rather than evaluate the Post’s motion for summary judgment under section 905.27, the trial court ruled “the proper procedure for obtaining disclosure of confidential court records is set forth in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(j).” The trial court found its “inherent authority” did not “permit it to broaden” section 905.27’s purported limits....

...clerk’s continued participation is solely as custodian of the grand jury materials. 3  In short, the trial court erred in analyzing the disclosure issue under rule 2.420. This alone requires reversal and remand for an analysis under section 905.27. • Section 905.27 “There is a tradition in the United States, a tradition that is ‘older than our Nation itself,’ that proceedings before a grand jury shall generally remain secret.” In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir....

...Similarly, in In re Hastings, 735 F.2d 1261, 1268–69 (11th Cir. 1984), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s disclosure of grand jury proceedings even though not specifically authorized by Rule 6. And the U.S. Supreme Court has held section 905.27 cannot prevent a grand jury witness from disclosing his/her own testimony because it would violate the witness’s First Amendment rights. Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990). We extract from these decisions the court’s inherent authority to disclose grand jury materials despite the traditional rule of secrecy. In fact, this is contemplated and supported by section 905.27’s language. Craig also provides helpful instruction on what a trial court should consider when faced with this issue. 4  Mindful that there is no talismanic formula or rigid set...

...proceedings who might be affected by disclosure are still alive; and (ix) the additional need for maintaining secrecy in the particular case in question. Craig, 131 F. 3d at 106. With this foundation, we begin our analysis of section 905.27....

...attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. § 905.27, Fla. Stat. (2019). We disagree with the trial court’s restrictive reading of section 905.27. We read subsection (1) to prohibit identified people from disclosing grand jury witness testimony and evidence, unless required to be disclosed by a court. The statute articulates three exceptions to the prohibition. Its very language contemplates the trial court’s ability to order disclosure: “except when required by a court to disclose . . . .” § 905.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). Although section 905.27 addresses grand jury proceeding secrecy and non-disclosure, it also specifically recognizes a court’s inherent authority to order disclosure....

...effrey Epstein. The Post did so by tracing the investigation’s controversial history and ultimate disposition of the charges against him. The trial court was required therefore to determine whether the disclosure will in fact further justice under section 905.27. Courts have inherent authority to “do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction, subject to existing laws and constitutional provisions.” Rose v. Palm Beach County, 361 So. 2d 135, 137 (Fla. 1978). Here, the trial court did not exercise its inherent authority as contemplated by section 905.27(1). Yet, we do know the trial court has already noted: 6  [T]he established matters surrounding [Epstein’s] conduct, the circumstances of his resolution of the 2006 state charge...

...It may well be that the disclosure of [Epstein’s] grand jury records could reveal that fair treatment did not occur and that [Epstein] might have escaped appropriate punishment through some failing of our justice system. We are not unmindful of section 905.27’s subsection (2), which the trial court read to limit any disclosure under subsection (1)....

...Because our decision could have far-reaching consequences, we certify the following question to be of great public importance: DOES A CIRCUIT COURT HAVE INHERENT AUTHORITY TO DISCLOSE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE TO FURTHER JUSTICE UNDER SECTION 905.27? Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. MAY, J., concurs. CIKLIN, J., concurs specially with opinion. 7 KUNTZ, J., concurs specially with opinion. CIKLIN, J., concurring specially....

...ovide a means for the circuit court to review the Palm Beach Post’s request for access to the subject grand jury proceedings. But contrary to the majority opinion, I tend to agree with both the circuit court and the clerk of the circuit court that section 905.27, Florida Statutes (2019), has no bearing on the issue before us. Specifically, section 905.27 provides very narrow substantive rights to those indicted for crimes to obtain grand/jury materials for use in their civil and criminal cases. § 905.27(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2019). Like Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420, section 905.27 assumes an ongoing civil or criminal case, and that is not the posture of this case, rendering both provisions equally inapplicable. But—under the jurisprudence of this state—that does not end our inquiry because the Florida ju...

...4th DCA 1985) (C.J., Anstead, dissenting); see also Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Doe, 460 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The legislature also created a system to peer into these secret proceedings when certain conditions are satisfied. Minton v. State, 113 So. 2d 361, 363 (Fla. 1959) (referencing section 905.27, Florida Statutes). This Court has agreed that section 905.27 governs the release of grand jury materials....

...Our sister courts and the Florida Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Minton, 113 So. 9 2d at 363; Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. O’Grady, 421 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Jackman v. State, 140 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Those cases hold that section 905.27 allows the release of grand jury materials in the furtherance of justice....

...2d 550, 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); State v. Drayton, 226 So. 2d 469, 474–75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Notwithstanding those cases, it is unclear whether the actual text of the statute allows release of grand jury materials outside of a civil or criminal case. See § 905.27, Fla. Stat. The statute’s text allows disclosure in limited situations and to limited persons, and only when a court orders disclosure of the material. Id. There are three exceptions. Section 905.27(1)(a) allows the named persons to disclose grand jury testimony when ordered by a court to do so for the purpose of “[a]scertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court.” Section 905.27(1)(b) allows a court to order disclosure of grand jury testimony when necessary to determine “whether the witness is guilty of perjury.” Finally, section 905.27(1)(c) states that a court can permit the disclosure of grand jury testimony when the court determines that disclosure would further justice. Most cases focus on the third exception, disclosure in the furtherance of justice. Section 905.27(2)—which appears to limit the disclosure to pending civil and criminal proceedings—is ignored. 2 In other cases, the entire statute is ignored. Keen, 639 So. 2d at 600. Why portions of section 905.27 are ignored is unclear....

...§ 24(c). But the legislature had provided for the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings on that date. § 905.24, Fla. Stat. The statute makes grand jury proceedings confidential, and the statute is where we should turn to determine the exceptions. § 905.27, Fla. Stat. In conclusion, controlling authority holds that a court may disclose grand jury materials under the furthering justice provision of section 905.27(1)....

...essential requirements of law. Marchetti v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., 117 So. 3d 811, 814-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Hatfield raises four challenges to the trial court’s order. We address only one, finding it dispositive. She contends that, because she is prevented by section 905.27, Florida Statutes (2017), from disclosing her grand jury testimony, she does not have to reveal the “[n]ature of [the] information disclosed” pursuant to section 112.3187(5) for whistle-blower protection. The public sector Whis...

...investigation, where the complaint did not allege what was disclosed during the investigation and thus “failed to sufficiently allege that he engaged in a protected activity”). Section 112.3187 does not include an exception for grand jury proceedings, and the grand jury statute, section 905.27 cannot be used to create an exception that is contrary to the plain language in the whistle-blower statute....

...t. Barber concluded that “a grand juror shall not disclose a witness’ grand jury testimony, unless one of the specific statutory exceptions applies.” Id. at 1185. (emphasis added). However, Barber was a county grand jury case which interpreted section 905.27, Florida Statutes, governing disclosure of county grand jury proceedings. See id. at 1183–85; see also § 905.27, Fla....

...rather than simply incorporating the statute governing disclosure of county grand jury proceedings. See § 905.395, Fla. Stat. (2018) (governing disclosure of statewide grand jury proceedings). Unlike the statute governing disclosure of county grand jury proceedings (section 905.27), the statute governing disclosure of statewide grand jury proceedings (section 905.395), does not contain any provision proscribing a statewide grand juror from disclosing the testimony of a witness in a report or presentment. While section 905.395 makes it a crime for any “person” to divulge any of the grand jury “proceedings,” it omits section 905.27’s proscription against a “grand juror” disclosing “the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury,” as well as its exceptions permitting disclosure of witness testimony. Compare § 905.395, Fla. Stat. (2018) (governing disclosure of statewide grand jury proceedings), with § 905.27(1), (2), Fla....

...(2018) (governing disclosure of county grand jury proceedings). Thus, the county grand jury statute and the statewide grand jury statute are inconsistent regarding the permissible disclosure of grand jury proceedings in a report or presentment. Accordingly, we hold that the county grand jury statute—section 905.27—is not applicable in statewide grand jury proceedings....

...canon, in which the listing of some things implies the deliberate exclusion of others; and the surplusage canon, in which every word is given effect and none is deemed meaningless). Moreover, while the statute governing disclosure of county grand jury proceedings—section 905.27—was enacted with exceptions permitting the disclosure of witness testimony under certain circumstances, the statute governing disclosure of statewide grand jury proceedings—section 905.395—contains no exceptions and makes no mention of witness testimony in its prohibition against a “person” divulging “any of the proceedings” to “any other person.” Compare § 905.395, Fla. Stat. (2018), with § 905.27, Fla....

...diction as defined in section 905.34. Disclosures of Witness Testimony I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the disclosures of witness testimony in the statewide grand jury’s final report are not prohibited by section 905.27 or 905.395....

...ability of the state to detect and eliminate organized criminal activity by improving the evidence-gathering process in matters which transpire or have significance in more than one county.” § 905.32, Fla. Stat. (2018). 15 under section 905.27 and are subject to being expunged under section 905.28. Barber v. Interim Rep. of the Grand Jury Spring Term 1995, 689 So. 2d 1182, 1185–86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Sections 905.27 and 905.395 reflect the historical understanding that grand jury proceedings should be secret....

...d (5) to shield the reputation of a person against whom no indictment is filed. Grand Jury Fall Term, A.D. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 624 So. 2d 291, 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Minton v. State, 113 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1959)). Section 905.27 prohibits the participants in a grand jury proceeding from disclosing the testimony presented to the grand jury, or the gist of that testimony, unless such disclosure is mandated by a court order: (1) A grand juror, state attorn...

...provisions of the Statewide Grand Jury Act, unless those laws are “inconsistent with the provisions of” the Act. § 905.34(13), Fla. Stat. (2018). The strong interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings suggests that sections 905.27 and 905.395 should be interpreted broadly. See, e.g., Minton, 113 So. 2d at 367 (the tradition of secrecy in grand jury proceedings “is not to be abandoned without clear legislative direction” (citation omitted)). The majority opines that sections 905.27 and 905.395 are inconsistent, and therefore section 905.27 does not apply in statewide grand jury proceedings, because section 905.395 does not expressly prohibit a grand juror from disclosing testimony presented to the statewide grand jury. In 17 my view, these statutes are not inconsistent. Section 905.395 is broader than section 905.27 and imposes an additional measure of secrecy in statewide grand jury proceedings. It prohibits “any person” from disclosing “any of the proceedings” of the statewide grand jury, unless pursuant to court order. By contrast, section 905.27 prohibits only persons directly involved in grand jury proceedings from disclosing testimony or evidence presented to the grand jury, or the gist of any such testimony, unless pursuant to court order. If one were to draw a Venn diagram of the two statutes, the terms of section 905.27 would be wholly subsumed within the circle of section 905.395. I would therefore hold that section 905.27 applies in statewide grand jury proceedings and prohibits a statewide grand juror from disclosing testimony or evidence presented to the statewide grand jury, unless such disclosure is specifically authorized by court order for one of the purposes set forth in section 905.27(1)....

...I would thus apply Barber to this case and hold that the statements in the statewide grand jury’s final report disclosing the identity and testimony of specific witnesses should have been expunged as unlawful under section 905.28. See Barber, 689 So. 2d at 1185–86 (holding that there is no exception in section 905.27 allowing for the disclosure of witness testimony in a grand jury report). Even if I were to agree with the majority that section 905.27 does not apply in statewide grand jury proceedings, I would nevertheless hold that section 905.395 prohibits the disclosure of witness testimony in a statewide grand jury report....

...contend that he was denied the right to compulsory process. In Trafficante, the defendants sought to secure a transcript of a State witness’s statement. 92 So. 2d at 814. Prior to the trial, the defendants presented a motion in accordance with section 905.27, Florida Statutes, for production of the transcript, but that motion was denied by the trial court....

...iptions are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07 (1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to s. 905.27 ." Section 905.27 (1), Florida Statutes, provides a limited exception to the public records exemption contained in section 905.17 , Florida Statutes....

...y Jail on 7/15/84.” (Emphasis added.) The state sought a protective order, asserting: 3. The Plaintiff deposition duces tecum specifically requires movant to provide notes and materials regarding the presentation to the Grand Jury. Florida Statute 905.27 specifically prohibits testimony or other relevant evidence received by the Grand Jury shall not be disclosed by the Assistant State Attorney except when required by a court for a) ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given...

...y the witness before the Court; or b) determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or c) furthering justice. It is a criminal offense to do so without a court order. 4. There has been no showing that there is an exception to Florida Statute 905.27 disclosure that movant is aware of....

...In denying the petition, we discuss the point raised by the state before the trial court and not the additional point which was not considered by the trial court and is raised here for the first time. Accordingly, our sole, present concern is with section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...t. The court also expressed doubt that Brady was intended to apply to testimony before a grand jury. In Jackman v. State, 140 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), appellant Jackman contended the trial court erred when it denied his oral motion, grounded on section 905.27, to require the state to produce the testimony of a certain state’s witness before the grand jury. The witness had admitted at Jackman’s trial that he had lied under oath at an earlier trial. The Jackman appellate court stated the pertinent law as follows: Section 905.27, supra, prohibits disclosure by certain persons of testimony given before a grand jury “except when required by a court to disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury for the purpose of ascertaining whether it...

testimony for the purpose of furthering justice. Section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1991), provides in part

(1991). The City filed a motion pursuant to section 905.27(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1991)1 to permit transcription

...e Lambeth an order dated February 21, 1968, directing the respondent to deliver to the court reporter certain notebooks containing testimony before the grand jury, which notebooks were being held by respondent pursuant to the provisions of F.S.1965, Section 905.27, F.S.A....