905.27
Testimony not to be disclosed; exceptions.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
905.27 Testimony not to be disclosed; exceptions.—
(1) Persons present or appearing during a grand jury proceeding, including a grand juror, a state attorney, an assistant state attorney, a reporter, a stenographer, or an interpreter, as well as the custodian of a grand jury record, may not disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence received by it except when required by a court to disclose the testimony for the purpose of:
(a) Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court;
(b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or
(c) Furthering justice, which can encompass furthering a public interest when the disclosure is requested pursuant to paragraph (2)(c).
(2) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, or communicate to any other person, or knowingly to cause or permit to be published, broadcast, disclosed, divulged, or communicated to any other person, in any manner whatsoever, any testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury, or the content, gist, or import thereof, except when such testimony is or has been disclosed in any of the following circumstances:
(a) When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a criminal case, it may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney of the court in which such criminal case is pending, and by the prosecuting attorney to his or her assistants, legal associates, and employees, and to the defendant and the defendant’s attorney, and by the latter to his or her legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the criminal case and for no other purpose.
(b) When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil case and for no other purpose.
(c) When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection (1) in response to a request by the media or an interested person, regardless of whether that purpose is for use in a criminal or civil case, it may be disclosed so long as the subject of the grand jury inquiry is deceased, the grand jury inquiry related to criminal or sexual activity between the subject of the grand jury investigation and a person who was a minor at the time of the alleged criminal or sexual activity, the testimony was previously disclosed by a court order, and the state attorney is provided notice of the request. This paragraph does not limit the court’s ability to limit the disclosure of testimony, including, but not limited to, redaction.
(3) This section does not affect the attorney-client relationship. A client has the right to communicate to his or her attorney any testimony given by the client to the grand jury, any matters involving the client discussed in the client’s presence before the grand jury, and any evidence involving the client received by or proffered to the grand jury in the client’s presence.
(4) A person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083, or by fine not exceeding $5,000, or both.
(5) A violation of this section constitutes criminal contempt of court.
History.—s. 106, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(106); s. 1, ch. 26940, 1951; s. 66, ch. 70-339; ss. 1, 1A, ch. 71-66; s. 1, ch. 94-285; s. 1503, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2024-7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Murray v. State
Murray v. State (2009)
“Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, permits limited disclosure of grand jury evidence for (1) determining the consistency of testimony; (2) determining whether perjury occurred; or (3) in furtherance of justice.”
Butterworth v. Smith (1990)
“At the time he testified, respondent was warned by the special prosecutor's staff not to reveal his testimony in any manner, and that such revelation could result in a criminal prosecution for violating Fla. Stat. § 905.27 . Section 905.27 provides in pertinent part: *627 "(1) A…”
Jent v. State (1981)
“After hearing argument, the court found that the defense had not laid a proper predicate for disclosure of grand jury testimony under the exceptions to section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1979). [4] There is no pretrial right to inspect grand jury testimony as an aid in preparing…”
Trafficante v. State (1957)
“Prior to the trial, appellants made a motion in accordance with F.S. § 905.27, F.S.A., for production of the transcript.”
Gosciminski v. State (2013)
“Under section 905.27, Florida Statutes (2009), the disclosure of grand jury testimony is not permitted except under three limited circumstances: (1) to determine whether the grand jury testimony is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court; (2) to…”
Morgan v. State (1976)
“26); disclosure of testimony of any witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence received by it (Section 905.27); and publication of the report or presentment (Section 905.”
Gordon v. State (1958)
“In ruling on this motion to inspect the transcript of testimony of the grand jury we think perhaps the court may have overlooked the full effect of Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, as amended in 1951, F.”
Wilcox v. State (2014)
“Prior to the trial, the defendants presented a motion in accordance with section 905.27, Florida Statutes, for production of the transcript, but that motion was denied by the trial court.”
State v. Tillett (1959)
“Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., enunciates these allowable purposes: "905.”
Minton v. State (1959)
“Our statute, § 905.27, Fla. Stat. 1957, F.S.A., authorizes the disclosure of grand jury testimony of a witness "for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is consistent with that of the witness given before the court, or to disclose the testimony given before the grand jury by…”
Barber v. INTERIM REPORT OF GRAND JURY (1997)
“28, Officer Barber filed a motion to repress or expunge the following portions of the report: 1) the conclusion underscored above on the basis that it is improper because it is unsupported by the facts in the report and 2) the portions of the report referencing testimony of…”
Multimedia Holdings Corp. Dba First Coast News v. Circuit Court of Florida, St. Johns County (2005)
“It further provides that "[a]ll persons who have obtained a copy of the transcript are placed on notice that any broadcast, publication, disclosure or communication of the contents of this transcript is a violation of F. S. 905.27, punishable as a misdemeanor in addition to…”
— 905.27(1) — 7 cases
Jent v. State (1981)
“After hearing argument, the court found that the defense had not laid a proper predicate for disclosure of grand jury testimony under the exceptions to section 905.27, Florida Statutes (1979). [4] There is no pretrial right to inspect grand jury testimony as an aid in preparing…”
Linowitz v. State (1986)
State v. Dixon (1983)
— 905.27(1)(a) — 2 cases
— 905.27(1)(b) — 1 case
— 905.27(1)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Pleas (1995)
— 905.27(2) — 4 cases
Morgan v. State (1976)
“26); disclosure of testimony of any witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence received by it (Section 905.27); and publication of the report or presentment (Section 905.”
Multimedia Holdings Corp. Dba First Coast News v. Circuit Court of Florida, St. Johns County (2005)
“It further provides that "[a]ll persons who have obtained a copy of the transcript are placed on notice that any broadcast, publication, disclosure or communication of the contents of this transcript is a violation of F. S. 905.27, punishable as a misdemeanor in addition to…”
Barber v. INTERIM REPORT OF GRAND JURY (1997)
“28, Officer Barber filed a motion to repress or expunge the following portions of the report: 1) the conclusion underscored above on the basis that it is improper because it is unsupported by the facts in the report and 2) the portions of the report referencing testimony of…”
— 905.27(l)(c) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.