The term government lawyers is restrictive in its application. * * * * If it had been provided that lawyers of administrative authorities would have free access to cases that take place before a grand jury, the rule would have provided for it. The wording of article 6 has been amended as part of the general overhaul of the penal provisions in order to make them easier to understand and to make style and terminology uniform in all rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic, unless otherwise stated below. The amendment of the third sentence of article 6 (f) shall be made to cover all situations in which the defendant is in detention or released in some form of conditional release on the basis of a complaint or pending information. The penultimate sentence provides that, upon transfer, the transferring court shall order the transmission of the requested material and also order a written assessment of the need to maintain the secrecy of the grand jury. Since the transferring court is best placed to assess the interest in maintaining grand jury secrecy in each case, it is important that the court that must now weigh that interest against the need for disclosure benefit from the judgment of the transferring court. The transmission of requested documents not only facilitates timely disclosure if ordered accordingly, but also helps the other court decide the extent of the actual need for information. For example, with these documents, the other court will be able to determine whether there is an inconsistency between some grand jury testimony and the testimony received in the other trial. This restriction is intended to “promote long-established policies that maintain grand jury secrecy in federal courts.” United States v. Procter and Gamble Co., 356 U.S.
677 (1958). As defined in Rule 54(c), “`Government Attorney` means the Attorney General, an authorized assistant attorney general, a United States attorney, an authorized assistant to a United States prosecutor and, as the case may be, matters arising out of the laws of Guam ***.” The limitations of this definition are described in In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 309 F.2d 440 (3d Cir. 1962) to 443: The first amendment is indicated in Rule 6(b) paragraph 1. The last sentence of the current article 6 (b) (1) provides: “Challenges shall be brought before the jury is sworn in and heard by the court.” This wording has been removed from the amended rule. The rest of this subdivision is based on the assumption that formal proceedings have been initiated against a person, i.e. an indictment has been returned. The Committee considered that, although the first sentence reflects the current practice whereby a defendant is able to question the composition or qualifications of grand juries after the return of the indictment, the second sentence does not correspond to modern practice. That is, a defendant will generally not know the composition of the grand jury or the identity of the grand juries before taking the oath. Therefore, there is no way to challenge them and let the court decide the matter before the oath is taken. Delegates adopted various rules, such as: the House had to have delegates from at least seven or more states; Any member who ascends must address the President and may not speak more than twice; and committees are appointed by vote. Many rules of procedure were adopted before the start of the Convention.
The rule of secrecy or “order of secrecy” was simple: “That during the session of the house no copy of an entry in the newspaper is made without the permission of the house. That nothing said in the house is printed or otherwise published or communicated without permission. The provisions of rule 6 (e) (5) do not violate any constitutional right of the public or the media to participate in such pre-trial hearings […].