remedy in the instant case. Defendant maintains that the grand jury’s failure to return an indictment before hearing Dr. DeHaan’s testimony, which was based in part on Ms. Thomas’ grand jury testimony, and that the grand jury’s subsequent indictment of Defendant almost immediately after Dr. DeHaan’s interview was greatly significant. Defendant points out that, as early as its decision in State v. Hopkins, 115 La. 786, 40 So. 166 (1906), the Louisiana Supreme Court had applied the grand jury secrecy rule to the district attorney, the courts, and the defense. The supreme court has consistently applied the | figrand jury secrecy rule to both the prosecution and the courts since the Hopkins decision. In re Matter Under Investigation Grand Jury No. 1, 04-672 (La.5/14/04), 875 So.2d 33 (<HOLDING>); In re Grand Jury, 98-2277 (La.4/13/99), 737
holding that a defendants false grand jury testimony was insufficient to establish perjury where the defendant was called before the grand jury for the mere purpose of laying the foundation for a perjury prosecution such testimony was immaterial to the grand jurys purpose holding the trial court erred in ordering the transcription of grand jury proceedings so that it could intervene in the operations of the grand jury holding that the trial court erred in denying the defendants motion in arrest of judgment when the indictment lacked a material element and it was not apparent that the grand jury based the indictment on facts that satisfy this element of the crime and that the only permissible cure was to send the matter back to the grand jury holding no right to crossexamine in grand jury proceedings holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings