Jackson v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• noting that agents assisting the prosecution as government personnel under Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) did not seek “access to the grand jury’s materials for purely civil purposes”
• discussing trial judge's refusal to excuse two trial jurors for cause thus requiring defendant's use of peremptory challenges
• government promise to recommend reduced sentence does not render plea agreement contingent
• “[T]he failure to appear ordinarily does not subject one to summary contempt.... The protection of Rule 42(b) is usually necessary because the judge normally does not know why the alleged contemnor did not appear.”
• although defendant was summarily cited for contempt for being absent from court, the trial court would undoubtedly have modified its judgment had defendant's subsequent explanation brought to light facts not already known to the court
• use of "grand jury agents" not proper