—
Bear with me, if you are a legal scholar and already know this stuff. (I look forward to your corrections in comments.) Some of us are not so fortunate, and have to learn these things the old fashioned way — we have to look stuff up, and search for the ‘significant signals’ amidst the ‘search engine’ noise.
So imagine my surprise when I learned about ten minutes ago, that Sealed Indictments are not the legal assessments of the Prosecutor. No, instead they are the legal rendering of Grand Juries — when they think a crime has been committed …
Sealed Indictment Law and Legal Definition
An indictment is a formal accusation of a felony, issued by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). It is the grand jury's determination that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial voted by a grand jury. In order to issue an indictment, the grand jury doesn't make a determination of guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it and that he/she should be tried. District Attorneys do not present a full case to the grand jury, but often only introduce key facts sufficient to show the probability that the accused committed a crime.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment of a Grand Jury…." . Therefore grand juries are often used in charging federal crimes. However, states often use a "preliminary hearing" held by a lower court judge or other magistrate in place of a grand jury to determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence that the accused has committed a felony. If the judge finds enough evidence that the accused committed a crime, the case will be ordered to be sent to the appropriate court for trial.
A sealed indictment an indictment that is sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested.
[...]
definitions.uslegal.com
Well since Robert Mueller shepherded at least 3 dozen Sealed Indictments to the appropriate Federal Court last year, it would seem that the “determinations” of the many many Grand Juries will have been thwarted, if those Indictments never see the light of day.
News outlets have reported that there were at least 3 dozen Sealed Indictments filed by Mueller — PRIOR to the release of his final report. (Including one that accidentally revealed an Indictment for Assange).
On the day of the Mueller Report filing, several reporters rush to report something, anything. Some of them echoed this blanket statement, issued by Barr’s DOJ:
Multiple news outlets also reported that Department of Justice officials were saying that there would be no more indictments from Mueller’s office, but it’s unclear what that means precisely. BuzzFeed News reported that its DOJ source “would not comment on whether there are any sealed indictments pending related to Mueller’s investigation.” CNN’s Laura Jarrett and NBC’s Peter Winter both reported that no new sealed indictments would be unveiled. It was unclear whether or not this included a sealed indictment of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that the DOJ accidentally revealed in a legal filing last August, but Winter’s reporting appears phrased in a way to indicate that all of the known indictments—which would seem to include Assange’s—had been revealed.
slate.com
At least one Reporter embellished on that blanket DOJ dismissal:
That’s funny. From what I’ve been learning tonight, Trump’s new guy in the DOJ, doesn’t have the authority, to revoke those previously issued Sealed Indictments (the rulings of various Grand Juries).
[...]
I highly recommend Garrett Graff’s latest piece titled “7 Scenarios for How the Mueller Probe Might Wrap Up.” As we await the next steps in the Special Counsel’s investigation, he reminds us of two important things.
Indeed, there have only been two immutable truths thus far in the Mueller probe: First, every move has surprised us, both in timing and content; second, every court filing has been more informed, detailed, and insightful than anyone imagined, and shown us that what we knew publicly was only the tip of the iceberg. There’s no reason to think that Mueller’s denouement will be anything different.
Attorney General Bill Barr might be able to suppress what Mueller writes in his report. But a sealed indictment can only be dismissed by a judge. That might be how Mueller surprises us this time.
washingtonmonthly.com
Some think Mueller pursued this Sealed Indictments course, as a backstop or insurance plan, in case someone like Bill Barr stepped in, and “trumped” his investigation, or over-ruled his extensively documented Findings (meant for Congress).
Others like Garrett Graff (referenced above) think Mueller may have pursued this course by intentional design:
7. Mueller unseals one or more long-standing sealed indictments. The media and bloggers have regularly tracked the abnormally large number of sealed indictments filed over the last year in DC federal court, the jurisdiction where Mueller has been working, including 14 added between August and November—a period where Mueller was theoretically “quiet” around the midterm election—and four recent sealed indictments that seemed to parallel the Stone indictment. Whether any relate to Mueller remains to be seen, but in some ways the idea of piling up sealed indictments would have been the smartest way for Mueller to ensure that if he was fired, his case lived on.
www.wired.com
How about: if his deeply-divided report was intentionally buried, by Trump hand-chosen protector of Executive Rights and Privilege. A man by his previously writings, believes a president is above the law — in need of protecting.
Will Mueller’s Sealed Indictments eventually speak to the Evidence, in case of THAT eventuality?
Or will they fall by the exhaustion-wayside, like so many Team Trump lies and fabrications before them? Just another thwarting of Justice, by a corrupt PR outfit that turns a split decision (falsely) into “a complete and total exoneration.”
— — —
One of the few things that Mueller actually said, that Bill Barr (accidentally?) included in his ‘executive order’, attests to the “complete and total lie” that Team Trump is expounding (those “total exoneration” claims):
"[W]hile this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," Barr quotes from Mueller's report.
www.npr.org
These are weighty matters meant for the Congress (a Co-equal Branch of Government) to decide. They were not meant for Trump’s inside-guy, Trump’s “Roy Cohn”, to roundly and sweepingly dismiss.
(as if Bill Barr were a Co-equal Branch of Government, or something — and not the Congress.)
— —
Please Legal-scholars in the audience: If the AG can make all those 3-dozen previously filed Sealed Indictments “disappear” by the sweep of this hand, please clue us novices in — exactly HOW?
Thank you in advance.
—