In re 38 Studios Grand Jury

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the Governor’s petition seeking public disclosure of materials from the 38 Studios grand jury. The court considered whether the Superior Court has inherent authority to disclose grand jury materials outside the specific exceptions in Rule 6(e) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as issues concerning standing and particularized need. The opinion discusses the history and purposes of grand jury secrecy.

Holdings

1. The Governor did not satisfy the traditional standing requirement because she failed to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury distinct from the generalized public interest in disclosure.
2. The Court may overlook the traditional standing requirement and reach the merits when a case presents a matter of substantial public interest and sufficient concrete adverseness.
3. The Superior Court has no inherent authority to disclose grand jury materials beyond the disclosures permitted by Rule 6(e) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.
4. Even if the Superior Court possessed inherent authority to disclose grand jury materials in special or exceptional circumstances, it would have acted within its discretion in denying the Governor's petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Governor had traditional standing to petition for disclosure of the 38 Studios grand jury materials.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should overlook the Governor's lack of traditional standing because the controversy presented a matter of substantial public interest.
3. Whether the Superior Court possesses inherent authority to disclose grand jury materials beyond the disclosures permitted by Rule 6(e) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.
4. Whether, even if such inherent authority existed, the Superior Court acted within its discretion in denying the Governor's request for wholesale public disclosure.

Disposition

affirmed