United States v. Mara

1973-01-22

Headline: Ruling lets grand juries compel handwriting samples from a summoned person, holding such demands don’t violate the Fourth Amendment and making it easier for prosecutors to get identification exemplars.

Holding: The Court ruled that a grand jury may compel a person's handwriting exemplars without triggering the Fourth Amendment's search-and-seizure protections, so the Government need not make a preliminary showing of reasonableness before obtaining such samples.

Real World Impact:

Allows grand juries to compel handwriting samples without a prior open-court reasonableness showing.
Reduces procedural hurdles prosecutors face when seeking identification exemplars.
Targets may have fewer early chances to contest exemplar requests in court.

Topics: grand jury subpoenas, handwriting samples, privacy and searches, prosecutorial power

Summary

Background

Richard J. Mara was summoned to a federal grand jury investigating stolen interstate shipments and told he was a possible defendant. The grand jury’s agent asked him twice to give handwriting and printing samples. Mara refused. A federal district judge ordered him to comply after an in camera affidavit from an FBI agent; the Seventh Circuit reversed, requiring an open-court showing of reasonableness.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a grand jury subpoena for physical traits like handwriting counts as a Fourth Amendment seizure. Relying on its decision in the companion case, the majority held such physical characteristics are constantly exposed to the public and that a grand jury subpoena for them is not a Fourth Amendment seizure. The Court therefore said the Government need not make a preliminary showing of reasonableness before getting handwriting exemplars and reversed the court of appeals.

Real world impact

The decision makes it easier for grand juries and prosecutors to obtain handwriting samples from people they summon. People called before grand juries will have less opportunity to force an open-court, adversary showing before being ordered to provide identification exemplars. The opinion also notes that if the Government sought the content of writings (not just physical characteristics), the person could assert the Fifth Amendment.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices (Brennan, Marshall, Douglas) dissented or partly dissented, arguing the Fourth Amendment should require a showing of reasonableness and an adversary, open-court review before compelling exemplars.