In Re: Grand Jury ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-11-2006
In Re: Grand Jury
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2936
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Grand Jury " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1123.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1123
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2936
IN RE: GRAND JURY
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
D.C. Misc. 05-mc-00197
District Judge: The Honorable Robert F. Kelly
Argued: March 29, 2006
Before: McKEE, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: May 11, 2006)
C. Clark Hodgson, Jr., Esq. (Argued)
Jonathan F. Bloom, Esq.
Thomas W. Dymek, Esq.
Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young
2600 One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-AND-
Sal Cognetti, Jr., Esq.
Foley, Cognetti, Comeford, Cimini & Cummins
507 Linden Street
700 Scranton Electric Building
Scranton, PA 18503
Counsel for Appellant
John J. Pease, III, Esq. (Argued)
Office of the United States Attorney
615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Counsel for Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
BARRY, Circuit Judge
As initially presented, the principal issue before us on this appeal was whether we
should now create the qualified state legislative immunity privilege we have heretofore
“refus[ed] to create,” In re Grand Jury (Granite), 821 F.2d 946, 956 (3d Cir. 1987). At
oral argument, however, it was made clear by appellant that the “principal” issue was, in
fact, the issue on which it seeks to prevail.
We have carefully considered the written submissions of the parties and the oral
arguments they so forcefully presented. We see no reason to revisit Granite and
conclude, without further discussion, that essentially for the reasons set forth by the
District Court, its orders of May 11, 2005 and June 1, 2005 will be affirmed.
2