BUTTERWORTH v. SMITH

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether a Florida statute prohibiting grand jury witnesses from disclosing his own testimoy after the grand jury's term has ended violates the First Amendment.

Action

Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

When respondent Michael Smith, a reporter, testified before a state grand jury about alleged improprieties committed by certain public officials, he was warned that, if he revealed his testimony in any manner, he would be subject to criminal prosecution under a Florida statute prohibits a witness from ever disclosing testimony given before a grand jury. 

After the grand jury terminated its investigation, Smith — who wanted to write about the investigation's subject matter, including his grand jury testimony — filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, seeking a declaration that the statute was an unconstitutional abridgment of speech and an injunction preventing the state of Florida from prosecuting him. The district court granted summary judgment to the state, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the statute was unconstitutional to the extent that it applies to witnesses who speak about their own testimony after the grand jury investigation is terminated.