Butterworth v. Smith
Citation and Court
494 U.S. 624 (1990) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Michael Smith was a reporter who testified before a Florida grand jury about matters he had personally investigated. Florida law required grand jury witnesses to maintain the secrecy of their own testimony indefinitely after the proceedings. Smith sought a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to his desire to publish the information he himself had provided to the grand jury.
Issue
Does a state law that permanently prohibits a grand jury witness from disclosing his own testimony after the grand jury proceedings have concluded violate the First Amendment?
Holding
Yes; a permanent prohibition on a grand jury witness’s disclosure of his own testimony after the grand jury has concluded its work violates the First Amendment, because the state’s interest in grand jury secrecy does not justify a permanent ban on self-disclosure.
Rule / Doctrine
Grand jury secrecy is a legitimate interest that justifies restrictions on disclosure of grand jury proceedings, but that interest diminishes substantially once the grand jury has concluded its work and cannot justify a permanent prohibition on a witness disclosing his own testimony about matters he himself observed and reported.
Significance
Butterworth v. Smith is significant in the Criminal Investigations course for its exploration of the tension between grand jury secrecy rules and First Amendment rights of witnesses. It establishes that witnesses retain First Amendment rights with respect to information they themselves already possessed, even if they communicated it to a grand jury.