In the Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings. United States of America v. Linda Dinsio

Dinsio appeals from a contempt order issued when she refused to comply with the district court’s order to furnish finger and palm print exemplars to a federal grand jury. In refusing to submit to the grand jury’s request for the exemplars and to the court’s order, she relied on the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We reverse the order because the procedures anteceding the contempt order deprived her of due process of law secured by the Fifth Amendment. We do not reach the other constitutional issues that she raises on appeal.

No evidentiary hearing was held. To support its motion to compel Dinsio to produce the exemplars, the United States attorney, representing the grand jury, submitted to the court in camera an affidavit of an FBI agent. All requests by Dinsio’s counsel to inspect the affidavit or to examine the affiant were denied. The court indicated that, based upon a reading of the affidavit, the grand jury’s request for the exemplars was “reasonable.” No other evidence was offered.

The statutory basis of an order compelling the witness to comply with the grand jury’s request is 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (a):

Under Harris v. United States (1965) 382 U.S. 162 , 86 S.Ct. 352 , 15…

(concurring) :

I concur in holding that before a commitment order should be made, the Government must make a showing that the witness’ failure to comply with the Grand Jury command to give finger and palm prints was without just cause. This in my view would not require the government to disclose its whole case, but would require enough to show that the proceeding was not pure fishing or harassment. Here, the Government *1395 had an affidavit “justifying” its demand, but this was considered only by the district court in camera and was available only to it.

468 F.2d 1392 In the Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda DINSIO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 72-2413. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 15, 1972. Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1973. Michael D. Nasatir (argued), of Nasatir, Sherman & Hirsch, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant. John F. Walter, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Eric A. Nobles, Andrew R. Willing, Asst. U. S. Attys., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before CHAMBERS, HUFSTEDLER, and WALLACE, Circuit Judges. HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge: 1 Dinsio appeals from a contempt order issued when she refused to comply with the district court's order to furnish finger and palm print exemplars to a federal grand jury. In refusing to submit to the grand jury's request for the exemplars and to the court's order, she relied on the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We reverse the order because the procedures anteceding the contempt order deprived her of due process of law secured by the Fifth Amendment. We do not reach the other constitutional issues that she raises on appeal. 2 No evidentiary hearing was held. To support…