United States v. Jacobs, AKA Kramer

Background

A woman whose grand jury testimony was suppressed appealed to the Second Circuit, which affirmed suppression for the sake of uniform criminal procedure. She had been called by a Strike Force attorney and did not receive a warning before testifying. The appeals court said its action rested on its supervisory power, not on any constitutional rule.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the appeals court should re-evaluate its suppression order in light of United States v. Mandujano. The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment, and sent the case back so the appeals court can reconsider the suppression decision in light of Mandujano. Justice Stevens agreed to the remand because the appeals court had not addressed whether a prosecutor’s failure to warn a grand jury witness automatically prevents perjury prosecution.

Real world impact

The decision sends the matter back to the appeals court rather than resolving it here, so it does not finally decide whether lack of warnings blocks perjury charges. People called before grand juries, prosecutors, and lower courts will face further proceedings to sort out whether suppression was proper. This is a summary ruling, not a final merits decision, so the outcome could change after the appeals court reconsiders.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Marshall, Brennan, and Stewart dissented, criticizing the remand as irrational or unnecessary; Justice Stevens concurred but explained why the appeals court should address the specific warning-and-perjury issue first.