Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Sealed Indictment"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:02 PM
Original message
"Sealed Indictment"
Edited on Sat May-13-06 06:02 PM by WilliamPitt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment

Sealed Indictment

An indictment can be 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.

===

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1800748

What is a sealed indictment? Or, the case of the missing third Duke lacrosse player.

Two Duke lacrosse players from New York's suburbs were arrested on April 18, 2006 in the Duke University gang-rape case, bringing home to Durham, N.C. an explosive scandal of sex, race and college athletics. Both suspects come from prestigious Catholic prep schools and well-to-do suburban communities where million-dollar homes sit on manicured cul-de-sacs.

The charge? A black woman who attends a nearby college charged that she was hired to perform a $400 strip show, and ended up being assaulted, raped, and sodomized by the two lacrosse players - as well as a third, unnamed assailant -- in a bathroom in a fraternity house for 30 minutes.

The racial and political overtones aside, one simple legal question needs to be answered. Why don't we know the name of the third alleged assailant?

The answer is simple. The indictments handed down by the Durham, N.C. grand jury were immediately sealed by the District Attorney Mike Nifong, who made clear in a public statement that "upon my motion, and pursuant to the order of Judge Ronald L. Stephens under N(orth).C(arolina).G(eneral).S(tatute). 15A-623(f), the bills of indictment were sealed. Because of that, no one in the court system was permitted to disclose that those bills had been returned - or even that they had been submitted to the Grand Jury - until such time as the defendants were arrested."

But what is a sealed indictment? Quite simply, a magistrate 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. Until the defendant is in custody, the clerk of court must then seal the indictment, ensuring that no person will be allowed to disclose the return of the indictment except when necessary for the issuance and execution of a warranty or summons.

In other words, the indictment is kept secret from everyone but the sheriff until the defendant is in custody. This may be done because a defendant is a flight risk, or because the publicity surrounding a case is so great as to make public disclosure prior to arrest prejudicial
. In the Duke case - with rich, preppy lacrosse players and nationwide news coverage - my guess is that both factors came into play.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. thank you
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sealed indictment huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. So when do they take him into custody?
Did they send him a letter telling him to come to the grand jury by Monday or are they going to throw him in a truck and drive him to the court house in handcuffs? How much do they want him in custody?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeatleBoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. So, there could be "sealed indictments" in other cases, too?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks, Will.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. So how did you guys find out?
Rove was going down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Leaking sources
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. anyway it pays to have those.
Especially in your field.

Keep up the good work, Kemosabe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. LOL i thought we went over this a few months ago w/ Scoots. Thx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. Do we know that the GJ met with the judge to hand up the indictment?
It isn't clear to me that it has.

We know that Fitz said there was nothing sealed in his response to Libby's pretrial discovery attempt.

So, it seems a sealed indictment would be a recent thing.

With all the folks in the courthouse on a normal day it's hard to imagine that the GJ moving to the courtroom would go completely unnoticed? Does the GJ not need to make a court appearance if the indictment is to be sealed?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. It's bees
It's all bees
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you, Will
I still say that if Jason Leopold reported it, then I will believe it until the story is positively refuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. People forget certain members of MSM Corp. are trying to quash
Edited on Sat May-13-06 07:01 PM by Pithy Cherub
subpoenas right now and there have been no rulings. Because Libby is pushing so hard for media notes etc., certain organizations need 2X the amount of great sources that Leopold has before they can say anything. Those with issues:

B. Novak at Faux
Cooper with Time
NYT editors
V. Novak formerly of Time
Woodward of WaPo
Mitchell of NBC
Russert of NBC
Miller of It's All About Me Inc., formerly NYT

I know on such short notice I am missing some. :shrug:

Jason is the best possible position to get the sources to talk everybody. The Media is up to their bare butts in snapping gators trying to quash subpoenas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
14. I never once doubted Jason's reporting and
the clincher for me was that Tweety was tipped off. Tweety had the scoop on Thursday and thats why he was dedicating his whole Friday show to Fitz & Rove. It is what it is! Just the timing of the announcement is unknown. You guys at TO hold in there. I firmly believe that you will be proved right. Maybe even when the big shots have their Sunday shows, if not, it will be soon enough. Congrats to Jason on the scoop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
15. This doesn't make sense, either
In other words, the indictment is kept secret from everyone but the sheriff until the defendant is in custody. This may be done because a defendant is a flight risk, or because the publicity surrounding a case is so great as to make public disclosure prior to arrest prejudicial.


Karl a flight risk? Does anybody think this guy is going to bolt? No, that's not it.

Publicity? Yes, there will be LOTS of publicity. But is public disclosure of this prior to arrest going to prejudice anything? We've been waiting for Rove to be indicted for the last five months. Is there anybody in this WORLD who would honestly be swayed by cameras surrounding the guy that they would go, "how could this happen to Karl Rove, he seemed like such a nice man?" Everybody knows it is a matter of time until he gets indicted, his own friends are talking about it, so there isn't going to be prejudice.

So what you're saying, Will, is possible - but doesn't seem likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Don't forget that he's a real member of the inner cabinet. They need time
to pass on his assignments and codes and responsibilities to other people to pick up. People need to be briefed. His own family (do crocodiles have families?) needs time to pak and get to grandma's house.

If you think about it, 24 hours to remove yourself from the oval office isn't much time at all. Basically, when it does happen, all traffic and communications will stop. Time itself will stop for the inner west wing. This will be paralysis. They need a little time to stabilize whatever Rove was handling to cut him loose and continue running the country.

I think this is pretty fast, personally.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klukie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
16. Could it be possible...
that it was a he is/was to be arrested today? It was stated that Fitzgerald gave Rove twenty four hours to get his things in order. Does anyone think that he may have already have been arrested and realeased? It wouldn't surprise me at all if extra efforts were made to keep it quiet. Who knows, mabye I'm nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. What would that be?
A "sealed arrest"?

Sorry, no, arrests are public record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klukie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. sorry for my ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
17. I for one find this Great news, pshaw to the naysayers...
And I for one cannot wait until you can tell them...

Nana nana told ya so....

Hang in there Will, glad you decided to stick it out in a place that's hard to tell who your friends are, but you can be assured the ones that count are standing firmly in your corner and appreciate your perseverance in these troubled times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
20. I can't find that today's article states the indictment was sealed.
Friday's article said it would be but without explanation as to why that would or might be the case. If the report is that the Rove indictment is under seal which is why it's not currently public info, IMO it should be explicitly stated in today's article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 23rd 2014, 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC