Question Regarding Sealed Indictments

In regards to the Motions that were filed, and people on here have said could potentially be Sealed Indictments. I also saw someone say that Sealed Indictments must be Unsealed Within 6 Days of the actual Indictment. Is that true? Even though the GJ has ended, does Fitzgerald have until this Thursday to march into the Magistrate and File the Indictment(s)? Just wonder if anyone is familiar with this.

You're simply quoting the speculations of people who don't know anything.

So, just keep that in mind, and you won't wonder about things that don't matter.

No one knows anything.

No one knows anything.

No one knows anything.

Which is precisely how it should be.

Curious. I would think the rules would be written somewhere so the public could know them.

the OP even said there were motions that were filed, and who knows what that means?

All that matters right now is that no one knows anything.

No one knows anything.

:eyes:

It was a specific "legal" question as to how long after being sealed, an indictment can be filed. It has nothing to do with this specific case in particular.

Well, check with your local federal prosecutor.

>>>Well, check with your local federal prosecutor.<<<

That is beyond snarky. Thats just plain mean.

Don

That's where you'll get your answer.

So much for trying to help.

You're welcome.

Or do you just like people to think you are? Why participate in a discussion if you have nothing to add?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Lot's of DUers will opine, or offer helpful information regarding subjects for which they are professionally knowlegdeable. They don't request fees, hell they aren't even on a gift registry at cafepress.

The link you provide below in this thread is one of the first hits you get on google when you query "grand jury". Gee, that was awfully nice of you. :eyes: I also wonder how you find time during the work day, as a DC lawyer, to stop and pay us visits. Business must not be so good, no?

With the hundreds of threads that are available to participate on this disscussion site, I am curious why you continually show up in threads such as these to supply us with your sarcastic remarks and negative input. Certainly there must be other subjects that interest you.

That's why.

Chill.

...you're a lawyer...or at least you claim to be one...answer the question politely.

first, pay my retainer.

The sense of entitlement and the laziness evident in a refusal of people like you to do even the most minimal research to answer your own question is always funny.

So, thanks for the laugh.

This coming Thursday, Libby will be formally charged in court. Maybe the sealed indictments will be made public. That would be juicy.

This link, though not authoritative, attempts an explanation: http://mathewgross.com/community/node/550

I sure wish I could find that procedure in writing somewhere. I have been looking.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/01.html

There isn't a lot of "Indictments for Dummies" type info out there that is helpful. It all seems to be buried within texts, here and there.

"(4) Sealed Indictment.

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons."

I don't see anything in there about having to unseal it within 6 days.

Could the prosecutor go back to the Magistrate and ask that the indictment be cancelled, if the "target" were to decide to cooperate?

he's called the defendant, and there would have to be mighty odd circumstances to have an indictment quashed. But, it happens.

The simple fact is that if you're talking about indicting Rove, he's right where anyone can find him, so the point of a sealed indictment - in the Fitzgerald investigation - doesn't make sense.

I just read somewhere that a Prosecutor can often get someone to cooperate by saying that there is this "sealed" indictment out there, which will be unsealed unless there is help given to nab someone higher up the food chain, so to speak.

An indictment has to stand on its own, without corroboration, in order to be issued, so that kind of scenario, well, someone's got Law and Order on their mind .............

I asked a couple of legitimate questions about the workings of a GJ, and sealed indictments. I don't need a grilling about watching LA Law or some other fictional tv show.

This is obviously a very complex case, dealing with some difficult to understand concepts. The only way it is possible for anyone to theorize about what is going on, is to understand how these types of juries normally work.

That is what I am wondering, so I can formulate my own hypothesis on why some obviously guilty parties were not indicted last Friday. I still find it difficult to believe, and am certainly hoping, that Fitzgerald has something up his sleave which John Q. Public has no idea about yet....but soon will.

In fact, it's a fairly simple one.

Why you're fixated on the grand jury is beyond me.

As for "obviously guilty," you're overlooking the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," something that's central to our system of jurisprudence.

You might want to look up the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and read the parts about grand juries and indictments. Maybe that will give you some information that might allow you to develop a more realistic concept of what's going on here.

It's simple, really: A CIA agent was revealed; there is a law that makes that act a felony; people are being interviewed to find out who did the initial revealing of the agent's identity as a CIA agent; someone was caught lying to the grand jury and the FBI, which temporarily hamstrung the direct investigation, so he was charged with five counts on felonies, and it is now back in Fitzgerald's judicious and unleakable control.

See? It really is that simple.

Here - this link might help you - http://tinyurl.com/bbmar

Fitzgerald is like a bloodhound on a scent that stopped to take a pee? Libby being the Pee and his indictment a slight delay from the investigation of the original goal/scent which is Who Leaked Plame?

Read it again, and perhaps if you went back to Fitzgerald's analogy of the pitcher hitting the batter during a baseball game, you might find a more easily understandable explanation of the matter. I thought he summarized it most succinctly when he used the baseball template.

My little bloodhound analogy just popped into my brain whilst reading your post.

Faulty wiring, I guess. I'm going for more coffee...

I think people who aren't lawyers get all tangled up in these matters by starting out believing that they're very complicated. After that, it gets hard to see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

One of the first things we learned in law school was how to brief a case - that is, how to outline the basic facts of the case, determine the status of the parties involved, see if any laws were broken, and what remedies/penalties were available.

They drilled that into us, those Jesuit priests/lawyers, and after that first year, our thought processes belonged to them. That's why I loved Fitzgerald's baseball metaphor - it was dead right on target, even though, to the un-Jesuited amongst us, it might have been long, drawn-out, complicated, and not exactly on point.

It was exactly on point. And he gave everyone the total answer - although not many in the media seemed to have caught it - when he said that someone threw sand in the umpire's eyes.

That's all this is, the Libby matter, is Libby throwing sand in Fitzgerald's eyes as he tried to conduct his original investigation. In fact, keep in mind what Fitzgerald said about the press conference should have taken place in October 2004 instead of October 2005 - my guess is that he was saying that Libby deliberately misled the grand jury, the FBI, and the investigators by lying just so that Fuckface could steal the November 2004 election.

See how simple it is when you break it down into its parts?

Enjoy your coffee.............

Just drives home how badly the election was stolen.

We should never - NEVER - forget that.

And, in its way, this investigation, even if all that comes of it is Libby's indictment (I can't imagine a deal or a trial, but I can imagine a pardon), is a stellar reminder of how vile those people are and how they'll do anything, regardless of how illegal or immoral it is, to win.

when you surmise that Libby was the reason for this taking a year to get here, it also seems Judith Miller and Cooper's resistance was a factor as well....

BTW, I enjoyed your banter with the folks upthread. Gave me quite a laugh. :evilgrin:

There's talk about town (DC, where I am), in quite hushed tones, of an "entanglement" between Miller and Libby going back quite a while. I find it quite credible.

I keep recalling the images of Miller when she was released from jail, and how she clung so tightly and closely to her publisher's arm, but sort of half-heartedly held her husband's hand. Something wasn't quite what I might have expected in those pictures.

So, if you figure that Libby and Miller were "entangled" in ways I'd prefer not to contemplate, don't you think that would have made the delay and deception even simpler to pull off?

As for the banter, well, if people want to turn themselves into Pong, who am I not to play?

Cheers..............

Out here in California, we have another expression for " entanglement" but I'm pretty sure they mean the same thing. LOL !

Miller is a "cat of many colors".....many of the stories floated about her when she was cleaning cellblocks seem to have a ring of truth. Things like her being an agent for Mossad, or she was sleeping ( oops, I meant entangled)with the Company Commander she was embedded ( oh jeez, entangled, embedded, bangin, it is all the same isn't it ? :rofl:)w/ in Irag. she has turned into a real James Bond. ( Jane? )

Her dogged determination to serve out the jail time is probably based on things yet to come...at least that's my never to be humble opinion.

BTW, the hubby I understand, but I can't help but wonder why anyone else would want to " entangle " with her.

A defendant in federal court that was acquitted of all charges after a 4 month trial based upon an indictment returned in 2003 and superseded twice in 2004 was notified days after his acquittal that he faced new charges. A sealed indictment on tax charges had been returned months earlier and the defendant and his co-defendants had heard rumors of a sealed indictment during the trial, but had no idea as to who was charged.

Prosecutors have all sorts of games they play. Where do you think t.v. writers get their ideas and who do you think are their advisers?

that the indictments may come down sealed to lean on the guppies to get them to talk.

And you're right - no one knows anything.

Stay tuned for Fitzgerald's next public statement - if there is one.

...because they're so devoid of ANY information as to be totally humorous.

Go ahead...please make me laugh some more.

you pay my retainer.

Cough it up, buddy, or no more funnies.

It almost seems as if you don't want this discussion to even take place.

I gave y'all the answer you sought, but if you don't read the thread, you won't find it.

Lord, I thank you for the laughs you have given me this morning.

Amen.

the prosecutor could ask the judge (not the magistrate) to dismiss it. No federal prosecutor would ever do this unless he had all his ducks in a row (plea deal wrapped up, or something satisfactory like that).

Even if Fatso Karl announced to Fitz that he was cooperating, Fitz wouldn't ask that the indictment be dismissed till AFTER Fatso had done EVERYTHING Fatso promised to do.

There could be indictments sitting out there which Fitzgerald is hanging over one or more individuals, and he can either have them dropped or brought as charges, whenever he feels necessary. If he has them released we never find out they existed. If he brings charges, then it's a bombshell some quiet weekday.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, don't claim to be one, and don't play one on TV! I know a few lawyers, but do not hold that against me. At any rate, my understanding is that prosecutors can, and do, play a cat and mouse game with the things.

Some journalist could get a bunch of people reading by doing a "Federal Indictments, Sealed and Unsealed, 101" type article. It sure would help inquiring minds like ours!

is to keep the fact of the indictment secret until the named suspect has been taken into custody. That's the only reason they exist. They don't exist so that someone can use them as some kind of "leverage." That's a TV fiction, I would guess.

When the suspect is arrested, the indictment is unsealed and becomes a matter of public information.

If new information comes to the prosecutor's attention before the suspect is arrested, and he or she decides it's no longer valid, or not worth pursuing, or won't hold up in court, the indictment is quashed.

For a somewhat parallel case that's recently been newsworthy, read about Ronnie Earle's abortive attempt to prosecute Kay Bailey Hutchinson in Texas. That's a classic, casebook example of how not to do it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/30/business/scrushy.php

Look what happened to this guy. they offered to drop indictments for testimony. That sure sounds like leverage to me.

All the assertions come from defense lawyers. The prosecutor declined to comment.

See, defense lawyers can say anything they want - it's called "spin," and if you believe them, then they're succeeding.

This is where Rove learned it, I'm sure.

Rove learned his skills from Lee Atwater, not defense attorneys.

It's just how things work. It's called "in the best interests of your client." That's why they're called "advocates." If you were the client, you'd want us to do exactly this for you. There's a jury pool out there, don't forget.

Always read things with a critical eye - watch who says what - the story is hardly ever what it appears to be.

I would sure like to find out the ins and outs of how the system works, and all you are doing is making offhand comments that offer some heat and no light. You really are not adding to the discussion at all. You simply keep saying the same thing, that the defense attorneys are not to be used as sources and that there is no way to know.

There surely must be history in cases similar to these, and I would wager that there are cases where the sealing of the indictment has been done to squeeze a player or two. I would be interested in hearing from people who know a little about these sorts of things, either from their reading and research or experience.

I'm not sure I know what that means, but if you don't find my comments helpful, why are you responding to them?

You might want to go to a library and do some research on your own. You'll learn a lot that you'll find useful.

But that sounds like work, doesn't it? It's so much better when people give you exactly what you want when you decide you want it and, by the way, it better comport with your notion of what the "right" answer is.

Bless the folks who were kind enough to introduce me to DU's "Ignore" feature.

Best of luck to you in your continuing quest for intellectual enlightenment.

I had responded to OrangeCountyDem, and you jumped in there and told me why I had no validity...which you seem to be doing a lot of, here.

Please DO put me on ignore, I won't mind. I suspect I'm not alone.

:hi: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/index.htm

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm

I found this gem in yet another subthread! While the Supreme Court in Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 371 n. 8 (1963), appears to approve the reimposition of civil contempt sanctions in successive grand juries, it is the policy of the Department of Justice generally not to resubpoena a contumacious witness before successive grand juries for the purpose of instituting further contempt proceedings. Resubpoenaing a contumacious witness may be justified in certain circumstances, however, such as when the questions to be asked the witness relate to matters not covered in the previous proceedings or when there is an indication from the witness or the witness's counsel that the witness will testify if called before the new grand jury. If the prosecutor believes that the witness possesses information essential to the investigation, resubpoenaing the witness may also be justified when the witness himself or herself is involved to a significant degree in the criminality about which the witness can testify. Prio r authorization must be obtained from the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, to resubpoena a witness before the successive grand jury as well as to seek civil contempt sanctions should the witness persist in his or her refusal to testify. To obtain approval, the prosecutor must show either: (a) that the witness is prepared to testify; or (b) that the appearance of the witness is justified since the witness possesses information essential to the investigation.

Thanks for that link--very helpful site!!!!!!!!!!!

and not just jibber jabber. ;-)

and worth learning about. I'm enjoying the hell out of that link, it does go into some good detail!

access to that manual.

This topic is definitely worth discussing. More people should want to understand how the criminal justice system works. Ignorance of the operations of the courts allows for abuse of power, imho.

I've often thought about going to law school (I am old and retired, but I like to keep the mind moving). I don't think I'd want to do much with the degree, but just knowing the ins and outs does give one a better view of how it all works.

It's kind of funny how we do not worry about the law until we see abuses of power and privilege, or when the law itself fails to provide justice...or when a nutty pretzeldunce nominates whacky folk to the Supremes!!

take courses in criminal justice at the college level. I love the research and have found that I can use the internet to help with that.

I believe that our apathy and ignorance is why we have allowed the weed and his thugs to take over. My crazy belief is, if I can help folks better understand things, then it helps reduce the ignorance and will make us stronger. I don't like snippy, snarky answers to legitimate questions. :hi:

hyper jazzy law firms (ahhh, but once, he was a slogging uniformed bastard like myself--though he was JAG--they have it a bit easier than the Line!) has been pushing me to do it, every time I see or hear from him. He avers that I have a richly devious mind, which I guess is praise (!).

I had the occasion to assist him awhile back in researching some rather arcane DOD regulations, and the stuff I gave him prevented him from looking like an ass in a case he was honchoing. He does not deal exclusively with military matters in his firm, but he seems to get stuck with the stuff that brushes up against DOD, because he was fairly high up in the food chain before he retired.

I really do not have an excuse, save laziness, as the good ole GI Bill will help pay the fees...!

Exercise your mind and feed your curiosity! Give it a try!

A lawyer named DONALD SEGRETTI!

Rove traveled extensively, participating as instructor at weekend seminars for campus conservatives across the country. He was an active participant in the 1972 Presidential campaign of Richard Nixon. As a protégé of Donald Segretti (later convicted as a Watergate conspirator), he tried to paint Nixon's opponent, World War II B-24 pilot and hero George McGovern, as a left-wing peacenik <5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove

You are correct that he did not learn his skills from defense attorneys. Segretti was a prosecutor.

in federal court? :shrug:

You are not being honest when you state "That's the only reason they exist" or you have never defended someone in federal court. Also, you and I both know that what happens in the federal courts in your state may not be the rule of law in all federal courts. Each court district and each appellate circuit has different interpretation of the rules.

Most criminal lawyers I know refer to their client's as the "accused" and not the "defendant", given that defendant has negative connotations and they want the judge and the jury to remember that they are simply accused of committing a crime.

Earlier in the thread I provided an example of a sealed indictment remaining sealed beyond the arrest of the accused. That example disproves your made for t.v. theory.

Prosecutors use sealed indictments all the time as "leverage" to get parties to cooperate with the investigation. Once a target or defendant agrees too cooperate and testify before a grand jury, another indictment against another individual can be returned or the existing indictment superseded (amended to include new counts and new defendants).

At any time the prosecutor can ask the court to dismiss an existing indictment.

But there is a little possible hangup: Okay, so once a GJ has indicted someone, yes, the fed prosecutor can later ask the judge to dismiss the indicment. (This is something the fed prosecutor would NEVER do unless he got something seriously good for HIS side in return.) BUT... what if the judge refuses to dismiss the indictment? (Of course, in this case, we have a Poppy-appointed judge... but, at least theoretically, a judge could refuse to dismiss...)

Essentially, the federal prosecutor knows that in order to get cooperation from actual MEMBERS of the criminal enterprise, he must pry it out of them. They are not going to cooperate willingly. So the fed prosecutor has to find something to scare them/hold over their head. Sometimes he might reveal that he can prove such-and-such crime against them. An even better thing to hold over a criminal's head would be an indictment. So, yes, your theory concerning leverage is, IMO, probably very near the truth.

by a court and I would venture to guess, would not be objected to by the defense.

Of course, the Court would require that the prosecution provide good cause. Dismissing an indictment does not prevent the defendant from being indicted again on the same or similar charges.

Double jeopardy does not come into play until the evidence is heard by a jury and the defendant is put in "jeopardy" of losing his freedom. :hi:

made unless the prosecutor has gotten something really good (good for his side) in exchange for making the motion.

I especially like this point of yours:

"Dismissing an indictment does not prevent the defendant from being indicted again on the same or similar charges."

Scooty-boot still remains a virgin until/unless he is convicted. So he can get indicted again on the crimes in question.

indictment or the indictment is faulty and needs to be amended or rewritten.

The prosecution is given a great deal of leeway during the grand jury stage, the court generally grants their motions as the defendant is not entitled to know about the grand jury proceedings or what transpired before the grand jury. Did you realize that the proceedings are so secretive that the accused is not entitled to grand jury transcripts? A defendant must make a motion for the transcripts and is allowed them only during a certain stage of the proceedings. Discovery during federal criminal cases is much more involved than in most state cases. (Jencks and Brady materials, exculpatory materials, etc.) The grand jury proceedings are often called "star chamber" proceedings as the prosecution has complete control and presents the evidence he/she considers important (their version).

Just as dismissing an indictment is not unheard of, so to is the presentation of a superseding indictment to a grand jury for consideration and return. That would be asking that they amend the existing indictment to include new charges (counts) if new evidence comes to light and/or charging new defendants in the existing indictment.

"Did you realize that the proceedings are so secretive that the accused is not entitled to grand jury transcripts?"

The defendant is given the GJ testimony right only at the time the witness testifies in the trial. Makes it hard to put together a strategy to impeach the witness (have to work on the fly).

You know, I know those transcripts are unavailable to the defense (with the above exception), but it comforts me to know that the transcripts EXIST.

Would you believe, in some state jurisdictions, there is no transcript at all made of GJ proceedings?

grand jury proceedings. :-(

But, at least our state requires that the prosecution turn over all discovery to the defendant prior to trial. Our supreme court has ruled that trial by ambush is not allowed which is more than I can say for SCOTUS. Federal court rules actually allow and foster trial by ambush. :shrug:

But instead of deploring it, for once, I'm glad! It means Scooty-boot has got a much tougher time of it!

;-) Of course, that makes this liberal feel a tinge of guilt, innocent until proven guilty and all of that, but lord knows, it is about time these evil thugs have to answer for their crimes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the indictment is amended to include a conspiracy charge -- how they all conspired to obstruct justice so that the weed could win in '04. :grr:

... if the whole truth of Judith Miller/NYT involvement ever comes out. My opinion is that Judith Miller, while posing as a journalist, was a card-carrying member of WHIG. (I'm not saying she wasn't a real journalist way before this group got into the WH, however.)

I am praying that they got sloppy in their arrogance and sufficient evidence will be found to be able to prove the connection.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/index.htm

I find it very informative. :hi:

:hi: I like sharing information and resources. Coy and snarky responses seem like such a waste of effort. ;-)

when the jury is sworn in.

As soon as the jury is empaneled and sworn in, Libby's got the double jeopardy defense available to him, should that become relevant.

But, don't forget, you can also offend two masters............

that the jury is sworn in.

:hi:

for those here who have not studied law--that what you're saying applies to the petit jury, not to the grand jury.

Indictments are quashed in all sorts of matters.

The part about "dropping" it is about Fitzgerald willingly throwing it out. He can't do that because he's not the judge.

as "dropping an indictment."

Wonder who came up with it.

For now, there is one certain thing: Libby will be arraigned on Thursday.

Beyond that, we know nothing.

"the D.A. dropped the charges".

I guess that's why the GJ (which most lawyers know to be simply a tool of prosecutors) gives a veneer of fairness to a "charge" (indictment): the prosecutor is supposedly only working with this "independent body".

I don't care, though, b/c in this case I welcome anything that gives this federal grand jury any sort of image of fairness. (And I do think these grand jurors were more than fair--considering what we've been hearing that that lying sack-o'-shit Libby told them.)

There's a real wonderful history, by the way, of the grand juries in the District of Columbia: invariably, and inevitably, comprised of minorities, not always the most highly-educated folks, all out of a disenfranchised and resolutely Democratic "state."

They have consistently been the most dogged and determined groups, working hard, dealing brilliantly with the most complicated cases, and never, not ever, going for the political jugular. Lawyers I know whose clients appear before them regularly say they're the hardest work they have to deal with.

Interesting, too, to note that the question to which Libby lied during his grand jury appearance came not from a prosecutor, but from one of the jurors.

They're powerful, they're Draconian, they're scary, and, in the end, for reasons that probably have to do with trusting the good sense of ordinary citizens, grand juries are a vital part of our judicial system.

which stated simply, "black people simply cannot be convinced to vote against their own interests."

I took it to be a comparison of how some whites will get drawn up into "let's do the right thing, not the selfish thing", whereas most black voters just keep their eye on the ball. That is, some whites think, for example, that "the government shouldn't give anyone anything; people should have to sacrifice to get things", whereas it seems that blacks expect more out of their government.

I'm with the blacks on that one. Haven't always been, but I'm learning. Screw "sacrifice". Why should WE sacrifice when the repuke leaders never sacrifice a damn thing?

although that might sound strange when discussing a DC grand jury.

It's more like these are people who have lived and experienced unfairness in almost every way, starting with the notion that, when most of them were born, DC voters couldn't vote in Presidential elections.

I think maybe they're more concerned with simply examining the evidence, listening to what the law is, and deciding who gets indicted and who doesn't. I think they want to see the government do the right thing, and they're happy to do their part in making that happen.

Maybe when you've had to struggle for so many different kinds of recognition - and DC really is a different kind of place from anywhere else in the US - you get a broader perspective that gives you a kind of courage when faced with grand jury duty. I don't know. I just know that they're an interesting bunch.

Very often, though, for people like me, anyway, the right thing is also the selfish thing, since my beliefs and hopes for this country of mine are tied up with how the government is forced to confront and remedy its failures.

He seems to be willing to point folks in the right direction at least. He is very informative, so he may be able to help with your questions. And no... you don't have to pay a retainer fee, I'm sure.

given the correct answer. Avoid cartoon characters feigning insight. Listen to what Merh said, and you will be close to the answer.

already know...lots of good background and explanations!

information. I think the world of her. Except for those mean things she wrote about me on 7-13-04 (which I have totally forgotten!), I agree with her on about everything.

Ah, but you have totally forgotten!

to tease Merh every now and then!

Holy Moly - I have to go back and check what I said if it made that type of impact! :crazy:

In my own defense, H2O gave better than he got! :hug:

Thank you dear friend for the kind words and the support! :hug: :loveya:

and links which work toward addressing the very valid question contained in the OP. The more that is added to the understanding of the justice system, how it works, it's limitations, etc, can only help all become more informed citizens.