UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
February 20, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ROYA RAHMANI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert M. Takasugi United States District Sr. Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT FOR GRAND JURY BIAS
This matter has come before the court on motions by Defendants Roya Rahmani, Alireza Mohammadmoradi, Moustafa Ahmady, Hossein Kalani Afshari, Hassan Rezaie, Navid Taj, and Mohammad Hossein Omidvar ("Defendants") for disclosure of grand jury transcripts and to dismiss the Second Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") for grand jury bias.
On July 15, 2008, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Superseding Indictment for Grand Jury Bias, Document Number ("Doc. No.") 793.*fn1 On September 10, 2008, the government filed its Omnibus Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Indictment, Doc. No. 830. On September 22, 2008, the government filed an ex parte application for an order to allow the government to submit grand jury transcripts under seal and in camera for the court's review. On October 15, 2008, the court granted the government's request and on October 17, 2008, the defendants' moved the court for disclosure of the transcripts in question. The court then granted defendants an evidentiary hearing on defendants' motion for disclosure of the grand jury transcripts, which was held on February 17, 2009.
The court has considered the record herein, including the pleadings, testimony, in camera submissions and other evidence in this matter. In light of the evidence introduced during the evidentiary hearing and after examining the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings in camera, the court concludes there was no error in the proceedings. See United States v. Fowlie 24 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court's examination of transcripts of grand jury proceedings in camera in determining whether said transcripts should be disclosed and in evaluating defendants' motion to dismiss.) Because there was no error in the proceedings, the defendants were not prejudiced. United States v. Smith, 424 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2005) citing Bank of N.S. v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 (1988) ("A district court may not dismiss an indictment for error in a grand jury proceeding unless the error prejudiced the defendant.")
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Transcripts Filed in Camera and Under Seal, Doc. No. 873. is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Superseding Indictment for Grand Jury Bias, Doc. No. 793, is HEREBY DENIED.