In Re: Leon County Grand Jury Presentment, Fall of 2025

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2026-2369 _____________________________ IN RE: LEON COUNTY GRAND JURY PRESENTMENT, FALL OF 2025, Petitioners, _____________________________ Petition for Constitutional Writ—Original Proceeding. August 25, 2026 PER CURIAM. Petitioners seek an extraordinary writ from this court to maintain the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings while this court considers the appeals from the trial court’s order on the motion to repress or expunge the presentment. The State concedes that the petition should be granted. We agree and the writ shall issue. A Leon County grand jury returned a presentment concerning Petitioners, but the presentment was not accompanied by a true bill or indictment. Petitioners moved to repress or expunge the grand jury’s report under section 905.28(1), Florida Statutes. The trial court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Several intervenors had earlier sought access to the confidential grand jury proceedings. The trial court denied access at that time—while not acknowledging the existence of the grand jury proceedings—but also specified that intervenors would be notified if there were any appeal from an order of the trial court in the proceedings. When it partially denied Petitioners’ motions to expunge and repress the presentment, the trial court ordered the state attorney to notify the putative intervenors of any appeal of its order within three days of the filing of any notice of appeal. The three-day notification period was triggered when the state attorney appealed the trial court’s order and Petitioners cross-appealed. Petitioners immediately sought extraordinary relief in this court to prevent the state attorney from disclosing the confidential grand jury proceedings to the putative intervenors while the appeals in this court remain pending. Extraordinary relief is warranted here. Article V, section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution authorizes a district court of appeal to issue “other writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.” See also Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(3) (“District courts of appeal may issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and common law certiorari, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of the courts’ jurisdiction . . .”); Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Bldg. Inst., Inc., 339 So. 3d 1070, 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). This language is similar to that found in the federal All Writs Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (authorizing federal Article III courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law”). The authority to issue “other writs” includes the use of an injunctive writ to maintain the status quo to preserve this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See Gainesville Reg’l Utils. Auth. v. City of Gainesville, 416 So. 3d 1284, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) (“An appellate court has at its disposal a writ of injunction to preserve the status quo and aid in the exercise of its jurisdiction.”). This court may therefore issue an injunctive writ “to maintain unchanged, as far as practicable, the status or condition of the subject-matter of the controversy during the pendency of the suit.” Cohen v. L’Engle, 5 So. 235, 237 (1888). The status quo to be maintained is for the confidentiality of the grand jury proceedings to be maintained pending this court’s disposition of the appeals from the trial court’s order on the motion to repress or expunge the presentment. The state attorney’s 2 potential disclosure of the confidential grand jury proceedings to putative intervenors would eviscerate the remedy Petitioners seek in the cross-appeal. The Florida Legislature has provided for the confidential treatment of grand jury proceedings. See § 905.24, Fla. Stat. (“Grand jury proceedings are secret.”). The confidentiality of grand jury proceedings extends to reports or presentments not accompanied by an indictment. § 905.28(1), Fla. Stat.; In re Grand Jury, Fall Term 1986, Pinellas Cnty., 528 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“Section 905.28(1) represents an expression of legislative awareness that a grand jury report or presentment alluding to unindicted persons carries with it the potential for stigmatizing character and integrity.”). When a grand jury does not return a true bill or indictment, the individual concerned in a grand jury proceeding has the right to challenge publication of the presentment by filing a motion to expunge or repress the report. § 905.28(1), Fla. Stat. After the trial court rules on such motion, public announcement of the report or any portion is automatically stayed “until the circuit court’s ruling on the motion is either affirmed or denied by the district court of appeal.” § 905.28(2), Fla. Stat. An automatic stay of the public announcement of the grand jury’s report went into effect when the state attorney and Petitioners invoked this court’s appellate jurisdiction. The state attorney filed a notice of appeal and Petitioners cross-appealed the trial court’s order on expungement and repression. Petitioners seek reversal of the trial court’s order denying expungement of the entire grand jury report. If the trial court’s order requiring disclosure of the grand jury proceedings to the putative intervenors is not stayed and if the state attorney is not enjoined from notifying putative intervenors of the confidential grand jury proceedings, the relief Petitioners seek on appeal would be rendered a nullity. Putative intervenors would learn of the existence of the grand jury proceedings and the presentment. That would, in turn, negate Petitioners’ potential appellate remedy of this court ordering expungement or repression of the entire presentment. 3  A writ of injunction is the proper means to protect this court’s appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order: The constitutional writ of injunction . . . functions only to give interim procedural relief. That relief is not the same as a remedy. A remedy must follow an adjudication on a party’s right of action against another. See Byrd, 339 So. 3d at 1075–76. Petitioners have a substantive right under section 905.28 for the grand jury proceedings to be maintained as confidential and the trial court’s order stayed while they challenge the rulings on their motions to repress or expunge the presentment. We therefore grant the petition for a constitutional writ and enjoin the state attorney from notifying putative intervenors or any other persons about the confidential grand jury proceedings—including this appeal. The state attorney shall maintain the confidentiality of the grand jury proceedings pending this court’s disposition of the appeals. The trial court’s orders requiring the state attorney to provide notice to intervenors shall remain stayed pending the disposition of the appeal and cross-appeals or until further order of this court. STAY GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. ROWE, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.* _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ * This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion. The opinion will remain unpublished pending this court’s disposition of the appeals in the related cases. Once those appeals are decided, 4 Jesse Panuccio and David Costello of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for Petitioner A. Alan Lawson of Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC, Tallahassee, for Petitioners B, C, and D. Joseph W. Jacquot of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioner E. William N. Spicola and Adam J. Komisar of Komisar Spicola P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner F. Christopher Kise of Continental PLLC, Tallahassee, for Petitioner G. Thomas E. Bishop of Bishop & Page PLLC, Jacksonville, for Petitioner H. Henry M. Coxe III of Bedell, Dittmar, Devault, Pillans & Coxe, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioner I. Kenneth W. Sukhia of Sukhia Law Firm, PLLC, Tallahassee, for Petitioners J. and K. Petitioner L., pro se. Bradford L. Thomas, Acting Attorney General; Jeffrey P. DeSousa and Jason J. Muehlhoff, Chief Deputy Solicitors General, Tallahassee, for the State of Florida. the court may publish this opinion on its own motion, or upon motion of a party. 5