shraby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-22-05 04:02 AM
Original message |
Horrid thought..if the indictments are sealed.. |
|
can they possibly be kept sealed and not opened?
|
DoYouEverWonder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-22-05 04:06 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I don't think a guy who just launched a website |
|
in order to post the documents from the GJ investigation is interested in going that route.
|
shraby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-22-05 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Who determines when to open them? |
|
Fitzgerald, the Grand Jury, or the judge?
|
punpirate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-22-05 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. The administration can try to do it... |
|
... but it would be a desperation move, and would be seen as such. Eventually, the perps would have to be arraigned, and it's very, very doubtful that any judge could keep the press out of that proceeding. Any hint of secrecy at this point would damage the administration far more than would attempting to have indictments sealed.
They could try, but all it would do is delay the inevitable. In answer to your question, it would be up to a judge. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, is responsible for presenting evidence to the grand jury and taking testimony. The grand jury is responsible for determining probable cause and issuing indictments, if required. It's up to the judge to acknowledge the indictments and put them on the docket for trial.
Cheers.
|
shraby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-22-05 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Thank you. Does that mean a judge can hold them |
|
indefinitely? Or is he mandated to open them within a reasonable time period.
|
punpirate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-22-05 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
... but Fitzgerald would likely immediately go to a higher court to have the order vacated.
Over the years, from what I've seen, there have been instances of judges sealing indictments, but only for fairly short periods of time, and mostly for extenuating circumstances--indictments are delivered on the day before someone involved is ill and due to go into heart surgery, or a potential witness or defendant is out of the country and might not return if they knew of the indictment, that sort of thing. At any rate, it's not usual for a judge to seal an indictment.
It's a judge's responsibility to accept the determination of the grand jury and call an arraignment. It's up to the defendant's attorney to argue for any sealing or a delay in arraignment.
Cheers.
|
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-22-05 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 02:15 PM
Response to Original message |