Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
83. It's possible there's a sealed indictment that may have sealed records including subpoenas (Rule 6).
Wed May 15, 2013, 08:57 PM
May 2013

I've looked at Rule 6(e)(3) of Federal Criminal Procedure several times, and I do not see the exception to the rule that a GJ witness may disclose his knowledge of the proceedings. However, I think what you are referring to is "Rule 6."

6(b)(2)(A) states that no secrecy may be imposed in a Grand Jury except upon jurors, court personnel, and gov't lawyers. That is restated in Chapter 2 of the DOJ Grand Jury Manual, as follows: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm

K. Non-Disclosure Orders

Restrictions on witnesses

Witnesses may not be put under any obligation of secrecy because Rule 6(e) specifically prohibits any obligation of secrecy from being "imposed on any person except in accordance with this rule.&quot 173) Consequently, witnesses are free to discuss their testimony with their own counsel, counsel for potential targets or anyone else they so choose. In appropriate circumstances, the grand jury foreman or the Government attorney may request that a witness not make any unnecessary disclosures because of possible interference with the investigation. However, when making such a request, it should be extremely clear that it is a request only and not a command and that the person making the request uses no express or implied coercion.



6(b)(4), however, dealing with sealed indictments imposes secrecy requirements on persons but that relates only to disclosure of the existence of the indictment until the subject is in custody or released. Related to this, Rule 6 -- 6(b)(6) -- states that records of a sealed indictment, including subpoenas, may also be sealed (made secret). See, below. It may be possible that if a sealed indictment has already been returned, further subpoenas and testimony could also be sealed. However, witnesses would be free to talk about receipt of such a sealed subpoena, to coin that term.

Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6

(e) Recording and Disclosing the Proceedings.

(1) Recording the Proceedings. Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. But the validity of a prosecution is not affected by the unintentional failure to make a recording. Unless the court orders otherwise, an attorney for the government will retain control of the recording, the reporter's notes, and any transcript prepared from those notes.

(2) Secrecy.

(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).

(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:

(i) a grand juror;

(ii) an interpreter;

(iii) a court reporter;

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;

(vi) an attorney for the government; or

(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).

(3) Exceptions.

(A) Disclosure of a grand-jury matter—other than the grand jury's deliberations or any grand juror's vote—may be made to:

(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's duty;

(ii) any government personnel—including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government—that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or

(iii) a person authorized by 18 U.S.C. §3322.

(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An attorney for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made, and must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule.

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. §401a), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.

(i) Any official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information. Any state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only in a manner consistent with any guidelines issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

(ii) Within a reasonable time after disclosure is made underRule 6(e)(3)(D), an attorney for the government must file, under seal, a notice with the court in the district where the grand jury convened stating that such information was disclosed and the departments, agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.

(iii) As used in Rule 6(e)(3)(D), the term “foreign intelligence information” means:

(a) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against—

• actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent;

• sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or its agent; or

• clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent; or

(b) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to—

• the national defense or the security of the United States; or

• the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.

(E) The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;

(iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;

(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or

(v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.

(F) A petition to disclose a grand-jury matter under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) must be filed in the district where the grand jury convened. Unless the hearing is ex parte—as it may be when the government is the petitioner—the petitioner must serve the petition on, and the court must afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard to:

(i) an attorney for the government;

(ii) the parties to the judicial proceeding; and

(iii) any other person whom the court may designate.

(G) If the petition to disclose arises out of a judicial proceeding in another district, the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the other court unless the petitioned court can reasonably determine whether disclosure is proper. If the petitioned court decides to transfer, it must send to the transferee court the material sought to be disclosed, if feasible, and a written evaluation of the need for continued grand-jury secrecy. The transferee court must afford those persons identified in Rule 6(e)(3)(F) a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.

(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.

(5) Closed Hearing. Subject to any right to an open hearing in a contempt proceeding, the court must close any hearing to the extent necessary to prevent disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

(6) Sealed Records. Records, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

(7) Contempt. A knowing violation of Rule 6, or of any guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under Rule 6, may be punished as a contempt of court.

(f) Indictment and Return. A grand jury may indict only if at least 12 jurors concur. The grand jury—or its foreperson or deputy foreperson—must return the indictment to a magistrate judge in open court

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This is going to circle right back to a Republican leaking classified information, yet once again. Ikonoklast May 2013 #1
That's what I'm thinking JustAnotherGen May 2013 #3
If that is true someone should go to jail this time. still_one May 2013 #56
Someone should go to jail for leaking a covert op. nt msanthrope May 2013 #62
The House of Reps AP phone wasn't subpoenaed for nothing...and why won't they release the 'letter?' msanthrope May 2013 #4
I am starting to wonder when the Republicans in Congress will start screaming in unison Ikonoklast May 2013 #7
Here's something interesting--it wasn't done by National Security Letter.... msanthrope May 2013 #19
I believe that was on purpose. Ikonoklast May 2013 #20
No Patriot Act or NDAA--plain old DC grand jury....and here's the thing on the letter msanthrope May 2013 #24
Yep. I'm willing bet there are some Republican undies getting fudged right about now. Ikonoklast May 2013 #29
ahhhhhh dreaming of perp walks Voice for Peace May 2013 #46
I hope so.. Cha May 2013 #99
I haven't been paying close attention & appreciate your OP here. Voice for Peace May 2013 #43
Yep. And the MSM will suddenly decide this story isn't "news worthy". n/t bushisanidiot May 2013 #38
+ 1 Berlum May 2013 #112
But will anyone be paying attention by then? efhmc May 2013 #113
That's where this is heading. harun May 2013 #123
I think you got it - all with due process - AP's cred will go down with the pubbies. freshwest May 2013 #128
I would love that JustAnotherGen May 2013 #2
Well, if I was an investigative journalist, I might ask why a major news organization msanthrope May 2013 #6
It will show just how far in the tank the AP is for them, sucking up to Republicans Ikonoklast May 2013 #9
Same here JustAnotherGen May 2013 #13
If the "letter" is actually a subpoena involving a Grand Jury truedelphi May 2013 #131
Yes--on the rest of thread there is a bit of a debate about that. I would like it answered, and msanthrope May 2013 #133
Yeah, ProSense May 2013 #5
And there you have it. DevonRex May 2013 #8
You know, we have investigative journalists on this board. I want some answers. nt msanthrope May 2013 #11
Hahaha!!!! DevonRex May 2013 #32
I have a confession--dyslexia forces me to use the spell check. When I don't, msanthrope May 2013 #33
I have a confession... DevonRex May 2013 #39
this whole three-pronged fusillade of bullshit against Obama MjolnirTime May 2013 #84
That's right. DevonRex May 2013 #87
DU Rec... SidDithers May 2013 #10
Oh, this is getting good... one_voice May 2013 #12
Shove over JustAnotherGen May 2013 #15
Yep... one_voice May 2013 #21
excellent analysis... chillfactor May 2013 #14
The bad economy, the failure of Occupy, etc. has made for some understandable disgruntlement, IMO. randome May 2013 #26
+1,000 - The Nabobs have been very false, disingenuous and condescending-NT Anansi1171 May 2013 #65
There's a lot of good thinkers on this board. Cha May 2013 #100
On one of the first threads about this the other day davidpdx May 2013 #102
This is one of those scenarios in which I think I know only 50% of the relevant information LanternWaste May 2013 #16
Probably a good policy davidpdx May 2013 #103
But...but...Obama....Holder...but...but MineralMan May 2013 #17
Facts are good, and one might wonder why the AP isn't showing a major one---the msanthrope May 2013 #22
The more facts the better, I say. MineralMan May 2013 #23
The letter from the government to the AP would have the code section under which msanthrope May 2013 #27
Could well be. I imagine it will be revealed in time. MineralMan May 2013 #31
OP claims "letter" is actually a Grand Jury Subpoena in a nat'l security case. Says AP can't leveymg May 2013 #36
Well, wait a second--has the AP said it isn't legally releaseable? Why are they being msanthrope May 2013 #45
Ah, but gang of 8 means the Majority and Minority Leaders plus Chair and Ranking Members of Intel Co hedda_foil May 2013 #95
Somehow, I don't see Boehner in that role, but Cantor? Wouldn't surprise me. n/t winter is coming May 2013 #109
They could redact it or they could state it is a GJ matter. Or they could say they can't say. randome May 2013 #52
I believe the OP is incorrect. Fed Rule of Cr P 6(e) states that a witness can reveal info re FedGJ leveymg May 2013 #64
Post 74 outlines the local rules exception and the grand juror exception. msanthrope May 2013 #75
Interesting. Very, very interesting. City Lights May 2013 #18
"Anybody remember how in the Spring... ProSense May 2013 #25
Oh--how interesting. Romney blamed Obama for the leak, and now, the AP is msanthrope May 2013 #30
Here's the AP email address: info@ap.org. Unless someone knows of a better one. randome May 2013 #28
I'm trying to find Gary Pruitt's...there's a 2nd letter he's not releasing, and msanthrope May 2013 #35
Here's the email I just sent. randome May 2013 #34
I got the DC desk email--- wdcdesk@ap.org msanthrope May 2013 #40
Thanks! I'll send one to that address, too! randome May 2013 #44
Curious ~ have you heard back on this?? n/t CaliGal May 2013 #151
Not a thing. nt msanthrope May 2013 #160
Pretty good speculation there... I hope you are right OKNancy May 2013 #37
k/r Dawson Leery May 2013 #41
thankyou! Whisp May 2013 #42
People have worked themselves into such a conspiracy frenzy about this President Voice for Peace May 2013 #49
I remember when the Clenis fascinated Democrats, as well as Republicans. msanthrope May 2013 #54
Let's hope this tidbit settles down all the freakazoids calling for Holder's head railsback May 2013 #47
It's amazing what comes out of the woodwork. nt msanthrope May 2013 #50
Probably Scooter Libby again.. those damn leakers Voice for Peace May 2013 #48
I also think it's highly likely that the leaker is a Republican. winter is coming May 2013 #51
More interesting is the role of the AP in this--if the leaker is a Republican, then msanthrope May 2013 #53
Looks like a vaible timeline, and points directly at a Republican operation. Ikonoklast May 2013 #60
Between this and the story about the Repubs deliberately falsifying emails re: Benghazi Number23 May 2013 #70
I was wondering how the AP confrimed the veracity of the "tip." Liberal In Texas May 2013 #156
Fascinating stuff. Thanks for posting n/t emulatorloo May 2013 #55
I am giving this a standing ovation. Very good news that is fit to print!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anansi1171 May 2013 #57
This is why Senate Republican's are standing down on this Quixote1818 May 2013 #58
Precisely--this could be Gang of Eight. msanthrope May 2013 #61
exactly, msanthrope! hopemountain May 2013 #59
OP- Please cite a source for your claim that a subpoenaed witness cannot publish an subpoena leveymg May 2013 #63
You are forgetting the DC circuit local rules. msanthrope May 2013 #66
Local Ct. Rules don't trump Fed Rules of Criminal Procedure. leveymg May 2013 #67
If you look at rule 6e you will see the exception. And post 74 outlines msanthrope May 2013 #73
It's possible there's a sealed indictment that may have sealed records including subpoenas (Rule 6). leveymg May 2013 #83
Well, if I am wrong about the rule, then why haven't they published? msanthrope May 2013 #90
If there's a sealed indictment, the subpoenas may also be sealed. The witness can talk about their leveymg May 2013 #106
You're conflating a few different things ...but again, why haven't they published? msanthrope May 2013 #110
When an indictment is sealed, the court docs - including the subpoenas - normally are, as well. leveymg May 2013 #126
Like I said....you are conflating a few different things. But you seem to have conceded the point msanthrope May 2013 #134
Put some links out, and I'll read it. leveymg May 2013 #140
I can't link off my Lexis account.*** msanthrope May 2013 #143
I have a Lexis Acct. and Pacer. leveymg May 2013 #144
No...I mean I cannot hotlink off this friggin' phone. If you are in Lexis, though, msanthrope May 2013 #146
Sounds like interesting bedtime reading! leveymg May 2013 #149
Nah...the Clinton grand jury report is what you want for bedtime. nt msanthrope May 2013 #150
I remember that 'proof'! LOL! randome May 2013 #153
In addition to the absence of support for such a claim, it seems that there is an absence of AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #68
My dear former IRS lawyer...would you care to look at 6e (3)(B)(5) in the DOJ handbook msanthrope May 2013 #74
If the very nature of the grand jury means that it operates in secrecy Number23 May 2013 #72
Then they should be upfront about that -state that they cannot publish because of that reason. randome May 2013 #78
I'm not sure that you read my response right. Number23 May 2013 #86
Msanthrope, I'd take one of you over 5 dozen of the Hair on Fire Brigade any damn day of the week Number23 May 2013 #69
Well said... SidDithers May 2013 #77
+1 SunSeeker May 2013 #89
K & R malaise May 2013 #71
judith Miller forever destroyed my faith in "free press" mainer May 2013 #76
Bravo. graham4anything May 2013 #79
Two days ago, Michael Isikoff made this point: ProSense May 2013 #80
Cui bono? cvoogt May 2013 #81
And the ratfucking allies who heap it on.....nt msanthrope May 2013 #82
Regarding the foreign policy creds: YES. DevonRex May 2013 #85
The title of the OP makes a concrete claim (AP's being investigated by GJ) then doesn't back it up. cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #88
Um, a subpoena means investigation. As in, if you get a subpoena, do you msanthrope May 2013 #91
If it's a fact that the AP is the object of a GJ investigation I apologixe. cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #92
Is "object" a legal term, defined by statute? nt msanthrope May 2013 #94
Thanks n/t cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #115
The M$M tried to slander it with the use of 'taps' Rex May 2013 #93
I really hope your correct. blackspade May 2013 #96
Just asking again Half-Century Man May 2013 #97
This is stupidly wrong Yo_Mama May 2013 #98
Actually, thank you for proving my point--where is that letter? They keep referring msanthrope May 2013 #105
Maybe the AP doesn't want to divulge the namrs morningfog May 2013 #107
Oh...watching it play out now? Awesome. nt msanthrope May 2013 #111
Yes, if the alternative is unfounded speculation morningfog May 2013 #120
That might be the funniest thing you've ever written to me! nt msanthrope May 2013 #135
They can redact or they can state they cannot publish. randome May 2013 #116
Very Informative OP, msanthrope.. Cha May 2013 #101
I hope it's Cantor, if he's in the Gang, is he? nt Ilsa May 2013 #104
I hope it is Issa. Rex May 2013 #119
That would be sweet! I don't know offhand Ilsa May 2013 #166
Excellent and informative post. Thank you. k&r n/t Laelth May 2013 #108
k&r... spanone May 2013 #114
"The AP's being investigated by a grand jury" michigandem58 May 2013 #117
Yes. You get a subpoena, you are being investigated. nt msanthrope May 2013 #147
Question for msanthrope pmorlan1 May 2013 #118
No, comrade, I am not a "Party official." Seriously, though, I do work for various msanthrope May 2013 #137
Thanks pmorlan1 May 2013 #145
There are some Party people on this site. I think it's up to them to say who msanthrope May 2013 #165
If Boomerang Tossing Were An Olympic Event cynzke May 2013 #121
Love yr description/analogy. truedelphi May 2013 #132
This thread makes me smile-Thanks for the information Gothmog May 2013 #122
Interesting Blog post pmorlan1 May 2013 #124
He makes the wrong point. randome May 2013 #125
In the bubble pmorlan1 May 2013 #127
'Sweeping attempt'. randome May 2013 #129
And of course, in a nation that is slipping into truedelphi May 2013 #130
Do you think we have a free press in practice? LiberalAndProud May 2013 #168
Your statements are not wrong, but the revolving door between industry truedelphi May 2013 #170
Let me get this straight.... GoCubsGo May 2013 #136
Why, yes--that's about the long and the short of it. nt msanthrope May 2013 #139
I would like to say this shocks me. GoCubsGo May 2013 #141
I recommended this because I want the conversation front and center tavalon May 2013 #138
The thing is, tavalon--this isn't new. The grand jury has always msanthrope May 2013 #142
I thought it was actually going back and listening to the conversations tavalon May 2013 #154
Absolutely no wiretap. This is a subpeona of certain business records, allowed msanthrope May 2013 #159
So, where did they find the craptastic idiots for Clinton? tavalon May 2013 #161
What??? The Clinton DC grand jury rocked! They refused to true bill msanthrope May 2013 #162
Allowing Holder to secretly gather the information tavalon May 2013 #163
What? Congress allows this, by statute--here's the link to 28 CFR 50.10 msanthrope May 2013 #164
Perhaps we, the public, should start demanding that the AP release the letter. Produce the letter. Skidmore May 2013 #148
Here is the email address to use: wdcdesk@ap.org. randome May 2013 #152
I think the AP should release the letter..redacting phone numbers msanthrope May 2013 #169
I remember Romney's smirk when he jumped on the Benghazi event with mostly wrong information. nt patrice May 2013 #155
Some of us recall PO saying on 9/12/12, or there-abouts, an INVESTIGATION was under-way AND patrice May 2013 #157
little kick. . . .n/t annabanana May 2013 #158
k&r... spanone May 2013 #167
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The AP's being investigat...»Reply #83