I have to say I frequently will quickly (far below my standards) write ideas to attorneys in matters I find important.
This last night (as my GF is nearing her due date) I couldn't sleep. I wanted to do something since being laid off. ALthought I think I will look for work after making her feel comfortable is no longer full time.
At any rate. I was shocked. Within minutes one of the attorneys emailed me back.
Thank you for researching out and sharing your ideas. We recognize that we are plowing new ground here, so I appreciate hearing others' ideas. This is good stuff.
Also, congratulations on your impending parenthood!
Sent from my iPhone
Plowing new ground? Awesome they must have more in mind.
I did have more in mind. And I suppose that with a really great legal team (up at 5am?) I'd post in case others have ideas, and again just because it's nice to imagine helping in such a tragic situation. Below a bit of what I said. Not succinct. But I plan with their encouragement to state more of what I read.
I don't take a lot of pride in how I wrote what I did. But now that I know they read and appreciate I will definitely be taking time. I also emailed the NAACP.
What I said to the ACLU (representing the grand juror) was just comments on ideas/caselaw that may be useful for their claim.
I don't know if it is of interest, but I love the fact that they are accessible.
I am an attorney in Ohio who has practiced almost anything imaginable in my 7 year career.
The matter you are undertaking is quite frankly the sort of reason I went to law school. In having parlayed a 4.0 in business law, I do not have the opportunity to take on the right kinds of cases, those discussed by . . . (head of the ACLU in Ohio).
I do not have the audacity to think I know anything better. But, this matter has troubled me since August, and I would be remiss if 1. I didn't offer as I am awaiting the birth of my son any assistance I could possibly undertake as I have unlimited time 2. what I saw in my research and general understanding.
In my basic understanding it seems to me that your case is of course absolutely winnable. I hope I do not bore you.
1.) Disclosure RE Political/Historical/Social Significance:
(I mentioned as this seems to indicate as long as with others that public/historic interests should play a role in "secrecy"). This is an important dialogue I presented the dicta as it helps in an analysis saying "this case is too important to silence as there are a myriad of issues that Doe needs to discuss for the public's interest" I hope if they do so this may help support:
In re American Historical Ass'n, 49 F.Supp.2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 13, 1999
49 F.Supp.2d 274
"Of particular significance to the instant case, the Craig decision clarifies that historical interest in grand jury materials may, in an appropriate case, constitute a "special circumstance" warranting disclosure. See id. at 105 ("Lest there be any doubt in the matter, ... we today hold that there is nothing ... that prohibits historical interest, on its own, from justifying release of grand jury material in an appropriate case."); id. ("It is, therefore, entirely conceivable that in some situations historical or public interest alone could justify the release of grand jury information."); id. at 10
In recalling I believe that your Complaint implies that Public Interest will be amongst the reasoning circumventing any government objection for a "need to secrecy". I would add that if there are lay implications of Prosecutorial misconduct and bias (race) see mandamus cases, as that would seem to me to highten the public need/interest.
See related Biaggi.
2. The need to discuss Prosecutorial misconduct.It would appear to me that to the extent that misconduct was observable that obfuscates this role, secrecy works the opposite where such a serious possibility exists.
United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 762 (1997) ("[T]he discretion a prosecutor exercises when he decides what, if any, charges to bring against a criminal suspect[ ]... is an integral feature of the criminal justice system, and is appropriate, so long as it is not based upon improper factors."); see also United States v. Palmer, 3 F.3d 300, 305 (9th Cir. 1993) ("[S]eparation of powers concerns prohibit us from reviewing a prosecutor's charging decisions absent a prima facie showing that it rested on an impermissible basis, such as gender, race or denial of a constitutional right.");
I MENTIONED AS I THOUGHT SHOULD THEY GO A ROUTE OF PUBLIC NEED, THIS VOICE IS VERY IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING MISCONDUCT EVEN JUST AS A PUBLIC CONVERSATION.
I suppose you cannot have that conversation and it outweighs any need for secrecy which would only serve to shield the Prosecutor from criticism (a weak argument as they have already released all).
But as there are arguments that perhaps your clients viewpoints could lead to closer scrutiny at the procedure/bias, it is a special case beyond the fact that I imagine the government will rely on saying they have a compelling interest, and the historic nature of the grand jury. Etc (which really does not outweigh the first amendment as no justification to apply the criminal statute exists). It really doesn't if it is adding to what is a public dialogue that has these legal ramification.
See generally:
To warrant a dismissal on this ground, the prosecutorial misconduct "must significantly infringe upon the grand jury's ability to render an independent judgment." Larrazolo, 869 F.2d at 1357 ( citing De Rosa, 783 F.2d at 1404). The relevant inquiry thus focuses on the impact of the alleged misconduct on the grand jury's impartiality, not on prosecutorial culpability. United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 719 F.2d 1386, 1392 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1079, 104 S.Ct. 1441, 79 L.Ed.2d 762 (1984); De Rosa, 783 F.2d at 1405. Constitutional error is found "where the structural protections of the grand jury have been so compromised as to render the proceedings fundamentally unfair, allowing the presumption of prejudice" to the defendant. Bank of Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. at 257, 108 S.Ct. at 2374-75 ( citing Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3105-06, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)); [2] Isgro, 974 F.2d at 1094. A constitutional violation may also be found if the defendant can show a history of prosecutorial misconduct that is so systematic and pervasive and that it affects the fundamental fairness of the proceeding or if the independence of the grand jury is substantially infringed. Bank of Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. at 259, 108 S.Ct. at 2375-76;
I obviously have more. having no idea if this will be read so I apologize if many are sending you emails. If I knew I'd have presented more succintly and in memo format.
Thanks. Good Luck.
I obviously had some more to say. I focused more on the Mandamus/Race issues in emailing Ms. Ifill of the NAACP. I really am shocked and think it great that they would encourage people to assist as I am sure they are (my opinion I am not an attorney) considering more and this is the groundwork (I hope at least).
Good luck to them.
Sorry if this really makes no sense in the way I wrote. If not a lawyer and my writing not expecting it read doesn't help consider how misconduct and the need for discourse (political discourse the most important aspect of the 1st amendment) here tends to negate the Government's argument if they fight this that there is a compellinginterest to silence her. the silencing only serves to not let their possible bias, racism etc that may be discussed and who knows how utilized.
So any thoughts otherwise, cases etc. I am sure they are being nice, and mostly I thought it cool they are accessible and open and appreciative. I'm tired rambling. Sorry baby due any day.