is extremely unlikely that the Congress consciously chose to preserve and introduce into federal legislation these vestiges of Pennsylvania's parochial archaisms.
It is true that a special grand jury constituted in pursuance of 18 U.S.C. § 3331 is vested with special powers not possessed by an ordinary grand jury. These include the authority to make informative reports, without returning indictments with respect to the matters dealt with therein. 18 U.S.C. § 3333.
From this it would doubtless follow that if an ordinary grand jury undertook to exercise such special powers for the sake of indulging in publicity and parenetic exhortations to the citizenry, such pronouncements would be ultra vires. In that event the court would have to decide either to apply the rule utile per inutile non vitiatur if an accompanying indictment had been returned, or else fashion a "prophylactic" rule quashing the entire work-product of the grand jury. [The possibility of resort to the prophylactic route seems somewhat diminished as a consequence of the conclusions of Mr. Justice Powell in U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347-49, 94 S. Ct. 613, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974)].
But nothing of that sort has occurred in the case at bar. The regular grand jury here has returned a plain, ordinary, conventional garden-variety indictment, unaccompanied by any "special effects" the production of which would have required the exercise of the special powers vested in an 18 U.S.C. § 3331 grand jury.
Under these circumstances, common sense indisputably indicates that any duly constituted federal grand jury can validly return a conventional indictment for violation of any provision of the federal criminal law; and we shall so hold
unless and until otherwise instructed by an appellate court by whose views we are bound.
Summarizing, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The search warrant is invalid because of improper service, and all evidence obtained by virtue of it or as "tainted fruits" thereof is suppressed and excluded.
(2) The indictments are dismissed with respect to the magistrate defendants, because they are not "associated" with the "enterprise" within the meaning of the statute which they are charged with violating.
(3) The indictments against minor ministerial officials (such as constables) are dismissed for the same reason, and the further reason that they are not vested by law with discretion, and hence can not be guilty of improper exercise of discretion.
(4) The conspiracy counts are dismissed whenever the substantive offenses with which they are cognate and connected are dismissed.
(5) The indictments against the remaining "inside" defendants are dismissed to the extent that they involve only acts prior to June 6, 1973, or acts no longer subject to prosecution by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by reason of the operation of the applicable Pennsylvania statutes of limitation at the time of return of the indictments.
(6) The indictments against said remaining "inside" defendants are dismissed except to the extent that they contain allegations charging participation of said defendants in actions amounting to "bribery" as discussed hereinabove.
(7) It will be the responsibility of the trial judge (perhaps by appropriate rulings on pending pre-trial motions such as for bills of particulars) to ensure that the trial against the remaining "inside" defendants connected with the enterprise is appropriately limited by being confined to such charges against such defendants as are adequately alleged to involve improper exercise of official discretion and are supported by sufficient independent and untainted evidence to warrant trial by jury.
(8) Except as hereinabove indicated, all motions to dismiss or to suppress evidence are denied.
Counsel are directed to submit any supplemental specific orders necessary to give effect to the rulings set forth in this opinion with respect to any particular situations not dealt with herein in sufficient detail.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 1977, upon consideration of all pending motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that all evidence obtained pursuant to that certain search warrant issued and executed on September 23, 1975, together with all "tainted fruits" thereof be suppressed and excluded;
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the indictments (including connected conspiracy counts) are dismissed as to all magistrate defendants and minor ministerial official defendants (such as constables); that the indictments (including connected conspiracy counts) are dismissed as to all defendants to the extent that they involve only acts prior to June 6, 1973, or acts as to which the applicable Pennsylvania statutes of limitation had run at the time the indictments were returned, or acts not alleging participation in "bribery" within the meaning of the pertinent statutes; and that the considered motions are in all other respects denied, provided that it shall be the responsibility of the trial judge to ensure by appropriate rulings at or before trial of those defendants not dismissed by virtue of this order that prosecution shall be limited by being confined to prosecution of such charges against such defendants as are adequately alleged to involve improper exercise of official discretion and are supported by sufficient independent and untainted evidence to warrant trial by jury.