Quote:
Originally Posted by Atocep
Any attorneys here want to wade in on the Judge Cannon ruling today? I'm seeing analysis that's all over the place.
|
Some caveats:
1. I think Trump is a horrible human being and a cancer on this country
2. I am a defense lawyer
Both of which color my perspective, but #2 more than #1.
Grand Juries are powerful things. They allow the government to collect evidence. They can subpoena testimony under oath. In a system that prides itself on open access to the justice system, they are an exception that is allowed to operate almost entirely in secret.
And we have decided that that secrecy is worth it for a few reasons. First, it lets the government build cases and investigate without interference. Second, if it turns out that someone was being investigated and turns out not to have done anything wrong, then the secrecy was good to protect their reputation; ideally, no one ever even knows they were a target. Third, if the grand jury does indict you, then you will get an open and public trial with lots and lots of procedural protections before you are found guilty, so that cures any problems caused by the grand jury secrecy.
Because grand juries are such a powerful tool, we do not allow prosecutors to continue to use them in a case once they issue an indictment. The indictment starts the public part of the case, and any investigation, evidence gathering, etc. needs to happen subject to the normal statutory and constitutional disclosure rules. In general, you need to finish with the grand jury and then indict. You don't indict and then keep using it.
There are exceptions to that rule, and I am honestly not completely sure what they are. And those exceptions are what is at play here.
Here, it looks like the United States started the investigation in DC with a DC grand jury. Then realized that the proper venue was Florida, so it got a grand jury down there. But it looks like it might have kept one or both grand juries going post-indictment, and that is what Judge Cannon is asking about.
It may be that due to the complexity of the case and alleged ongoing attempts to destroy evidence by the defense, the continued use of the grand jury(ies) was legitimate and falls into a well-established exception to the general rule (indeed, it would shock me if DOJ was not being super careful about crossing Ts and dotting Is here).
But on the surface, it raises questions. So the judge is asking those questions. She hasn't ruled on anything yet. She is asking for more information about something that (IMO rightly) raises questions and suspicions.
So, all that said, I say good for her. We WANT judges to hold the government's feet to the fire. We don't want the government taking shortcuts that end up violating rights. And judges are our first line of defense to make sure they don't.