# Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States > Supreme Court of the United States · June 22, 1988 · 487 U.S. 250 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431401 ## Case - **Full name:** Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 22, 1988 - **Citations:** 487 U.S. 250; 56 U.S.L.W. 4714; 62 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5738; 108 S. Ct. 2369; 101 L. Ed. 2d 228; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2866 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Marshall - **Judges:** Kennedy, Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Marshall - **Cited by:** 894 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431401 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that an indictment may be quashed because of prosecutorial misconduct only where the improper conduct “substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict or if there is grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of such vi… - explaining that Rule 6(e) errors may be "remedied adequately by means other than dismissal," including, e.g. , punishing the violation as a contempt of court, disciplining a prosecutor and requesting the bar or DOJ initiate disciplinary proceedings, and chastising the prosecut… - holding federal courts cannot exercise their supervisory authority to circumvent the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a), which requires federal courts to “disregard[ ]” any error in criminal proceedings that does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights - explaining that a facially valid indictment is not subject to “a challenge to the reliability or competence of the evidence presented to the grand jury,” because “a court may not look behind the indictment to determine if the evidence upon which it was based is 15 sufficient” - reasoning that “there is no reason not to apply [Rule 52(a)] to errors, defects, irregularities, or variances occurring before a grand jury just as we have applied it to such error occurring in the criminal trial itself’ (citations and quotations omitted) ## Opinion text Justice Marshall, dissenting. I cannot concur in the Court’s decision to apply harmless-error analysis to violations of Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. I already have outlined my objections to the Court’s approach, which converts “Congress’ command regarding the proper conduct of grand jury proceedings to a mere form of words, without practical effect.” United States v. Mechanik, 475 U. S. 66, 84 (1986) (Marshall, J., dissenting). Because of the strict protection of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, instances of prosecutorial misconduct rarely come to light. This is especially true in the pretrial setting, because defendants’ chief source of information about grand jury proceedings is governmental disclosures under the Jencks Act, 18 U. S. C. §3500 , which do not *265 occur until trial is underway. The fact that a prosecutor knows that a Rule 6 violation is unlikely to be discovered gives the Rule little enough bite. To afford the occasional revelation of prosecutorial misconduct the additional insulation of harmless-error analysis leaves Rule 6 toothless. Moreover, as I argued in Mechanik , in this context “[a]ny case-by-case analysis to determine whether the defendant was actually prejudiced is simply too speculative to afford defendants meaningful protection, and imposes a difficult burden on the courts that outweighs the benefits to be derived.” 475 U. S., at 86 . Given the nature of grand jury proceedings, Rule 6 violations can be deterred and redressed effectively only by a per se rule of dismissal. Today’s decision reduces Rule 6 to little more than a code of honor that prosecutors can violate with virtual impunity. I respectfully dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431401. Public record. Not legal advice.