Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re 2015–2016 Jefferson County Grand Jury

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided February 5, 2018No. Supreme Court Case 16SA224Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Boatright

¶58 The majority reaches the remarkable conclusion that a hearing regarding a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena is not a grand jury proceeding. The majority reaches this conclusion despite the fact that the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena was filed in the grand jury case, to be ruled upon by the judge responsible for the grand jury proceeding, and the determination of which will impact the evidence the grand jury would hear. Hence, I disagree. In my view, a hearing on an evidentiary question before a grand jury is a part of a grand jury proceeding just like an evidentiary question…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Costello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  3. In Re Barbara Lochiatto, in Re Patrick Lochiatto, in Re John E. DunnCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1974
  4. Regional Transportation District v. Outdoor Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2001
  5. Pr v. District Court for County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1981

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API