IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HINDS COUNTY. MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI F I L E D PLAINTIFF VS. DEC 1 6 2008 NO. 08-527 BARBARA DUNN, CIRCUIT CLERK eee SHARROD MOORE : SC DEFENDANT MOTION TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENA ‘On December 15, 2008 a Show Cause hearing was conducted before this Court. During the hearing, it was revealed that Robert Smith had issued an out of state subpoena to compel a witness to attend a grand jury hearing. Mr. Smith alleged in his Show Cause Motion that the purpose of this witness’ testimony was related to the Sharrod Moore prosecution regarding the death of R.J. Washington. Since the purpose of the grand jury hhas been served, ie. indicting Sharrod Moore, as it relates to R.J. Washington's death, the State has no right to issue grand jury subpoenas regarding that case, As sueb, the Court should quash the subpoens. FACTS ‘The Defendant, Sharrod Moore, has been indicted twice for the murder of RJ. Washington. Trial is currently set for March 2, 2008. On December 15, 2008 during a Show Cause hearing brought by Hinds County District Attorney Robert Smith, it was revealed that Mr. Smith was attempting to get a grand jury subpoena issued to summons a witness from Oklahoma pursuant to 99-9-27- 99-9-37 of the Miss. Code Ann.' Since the " Undersigned counsel is unaware of the person sought to be compelled to the grand jury. The State, hiding, behind the shroud of grand jury secrecy, has not divulged that information. However, singe Mr. Moore has bboen indieted and requested discovery, the State is unable to uilize the grand jury investigation to precludeDefendant has already been indicted, there is absolutely no reason for the State to be conducting a grand jury investigation in this case. LAW ‘The State is prohibited from using the Grand Jury to preserve witness testimony or to conduct discovery use of the grand jury solely to prepare end preserve the testimony of a witness for the trial of a pending indictment ig an abuse of the grand jury. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 632 261033, 1041 Gd Cir.1980); "260 United States v. Woods, 544 F.2d 242, 249 (6th Cit.1976), cert, denied, 430 US. 969, 97 S.Ct. 1652, 52 1.Bd.2d 361 (1977); Beverly, supra, 468 F.2d at 743; United States ». Dardi, 330 F.2d 316, 336 (2d Cir), cert. clenied, 379 US. 845, 85 SCr. 50, 13 LHd2d 50 (1964); In re Pilliteri supra, 420 FSupp. at 914: United States v. Pack, 150 F.Supp. 262, 264 (D.Del.1987); see also Howard v. Commonwealth, 395 S.W.2d 355, 359 (Ky.Ct.App.1968), cert, granted, 383 US. 924, 86 S.Ct, 932, 15 L.Ed2d 84, and cert, dismissed, 384 U.S. 995, 86 S.Ct 1905, 16 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1966); Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605, 434 ‘A.2d 1030, 1044 (1981), cert, denied, 456 U.S. 908, 102 S.Ct, 1756, 72 L.Ed 2d 165 (1982); Commonwealth v. Core, 407 Mass. 827, 556 N.E2d 45, 48-49 (1990); Mauer of Grand Jury Subpoena, 144 Misc.2d 1012, 545 N.YS2d 974, 983, affd as modified, 136 4.D.24 294, $48 N.S 2d 679 (1989); Ex Parte Rogers, 640 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) State v, Johnson, 287 N.J. Super. 247, 259-260, 670 A.2d 1100, 1106 (N.1.Super.A.D.,1996) In fact, "the State may not use the grand jury to gather evidence solely in respect of the charges already filed." State v, Francis, 926 A.2d 305 (N.J. 2007). The prohibition of using the grand jury to conduct discovery post-indictment is widely recognized: use of the grand jury as a means for criminal discovery is, prohibited. See, eg, In re Antitrust Grand Jury discovery of the witness in Oklahoma. With trial set in March 2008, it appears the State is atemprting 10 sand bag the defense.Investigation, T14 F.2d 347, 349 (4th Cir,1983): United States v. Kovaleski, 406 F.Supp. 267, 269 (E.D. Mich. 1976) ((T]he calling of witnesses before ¢ grand jury for the dominant purpose of gathering evidence for use in a pending case is improper.”)."Once a defendant has been indicted the government is precluded from using the grand jury for the ‘sole or dominant purpose’ of obtaining additional evidence against him.” Moss, 756 F.2d at 332: U.S. v, Furrow, 125 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1172-1173 (C.D.Cal..2000), CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, the Defendant requests an immediate hearing, prior to the Court issuing the grand jury subpoena, THIS the 16" day of December, 2008. CHARLES R. MULLINS (MSB# 9821) COXWELL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 500 North State Street Post Office Box 1337 Jackson, MS 39215-1337 ‘Telephone: (601) 948-1600 Facsimile: (601) 948-7097