Massachusetts’ federal court is considering a significant procedural change that would require the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to inform defendants whenever a grand jury declines to issue an indictment against them, marking another step toward greater transparency in federal grand jury proceedings.
The proposal is part of two amendments to the local rules released by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for public review. Comments on the proposed changes will be accepted until **August 24**.
The move follows similar initiatives in federal courts in Washington, D.C., and Chicago, where judges revised grand jury procedures after multiple high-profile cases in which grand juries declined to approve indictments sought by the Trump administration in politically sensitive matters.
### Greater Transparency in Grand Jury Proceedings
Federal grand juries typically approve indictments requested by prosecutors because the government alone presents evidence and only needs to establish probable cause—a considerably lower standard than proving guilt at trial.
However, several grand juries have recently refused to return indictments in notable cases. These include proposed charges involving New York Attorney General Letitia James, Democratic members of Congress, and individuals accused of offenses connected to protests or alleged interference with federal immigration and law enforcement officials.
Although no comparable cases have surfaced publicly in Massachusetts, questions have been raised about whether similar grand jury rejections have occurred in the district. Earlier this year, U.S. Attorney Leah Foley declined to answer questions on the issue, citing the longstanding confidentiality surrounding grand jury proceedings.
### What the Proposed Rules Would Do
One proposed amendment applies to situations where a defendant has already been charged through a criminal complaint or an information before the case reaches a grand jury.
Under the proposal:
* If a grand jury does not agree to return an indictment, its foreperson must promptly notify a magistrate judge in writing.
* Once the underlying charges have been unsealed, prosecutors would be required to provide the defendant with a copy of that notification.
A second proposal goes further by requiring prosecutors to disclose to defendants whenever a grand jury refuses to indict them for conduct arising from the same facts or events underlying charges already contained in an indictment or information.
### Public Disclosure Still Limited
While the proposed amendments would expand defendants’ access to information, they stop short of requiring public disclosure of grand jury “no bills”—the formal term used when a grand jury declines to issue an indictment.
That differs from the approach adopted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where certain reports documenting grand jury refusals are entered into the public court docket.
### Legal Community Watching Closely
Defense attorneys say the proposed changes could provide defendants with information that has historically remained hidden because of strict grand jury secrecy rules.
Boston-based defense lawyer Martin Weinberg noted that defendants would otherwise rarely learn that a grand jury had rejected an indictment. He said the information could potentially support future legal challenges or other forms of relief, although the extent of its legal significance would ultimately depend on how courts interpret the new rules if they are adopted.
If approved, the amendments would place Massachusetts among a growing number of federal jurisdictions seeking to increase transparency around one of the criminal justice system’s most confidential processes.
