Question for DU lawyers: Since when do indictments have dates in them?

[Jersey Devil]

After reading all the comments here saying "We'll know the date of the indictment when we see it" I started scratching my head and thinking, "Gee, it's been a while since I practiced criminal law, but I don't remember ever seeing an indictment with a date in it."

Then I looked up Libby's indictment and sure enough, no date (except for the date the GJ was empaneled).
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

So, barring some statement from Fitzgerald or the Court explaining when an indictment was handed up, how would anyone know the date Rove was indicted if in fact he ever was?

[5X]

1. Oooh, good catch.

We need to hear from some practicing attornys on this one.

[Skinner]

2. Ouch.

I don't see a date on Libby's indictment either. If you're right, this is very bad news for Truthout.

[jsamuel]

5. Skinner, I have stayed out of this, but I think it is becoming clear that

the liberal blogsphere is getting Roved like Rather did. It isn't too late to fight back. :hi:

EDIT:
I think what is happening is that some sources are deliberately giving false info mixed with the other sources good info. In other words, this is a disinformation campaign.

[WiseButAngrySara]

16. I tend to agree. Leopold (and T.O.) are being "Rathered" or "Hatfielded!"

There were several threads on this very potential, and later numerous posts on the individual Leopold/Rove threads.

[Jersey Devil]

6. Actually, the sword cuts both ways

They could never prove themselves correct but then again, no one could ever prove them wrong.

Libby's indictment was sealed, but the order of the court unsealing it was not made public and I don't think it ever would be unless there is some challenge to the indictment procedure by the defense. So, even if there was in fact a sealed indictment (which I think is far fetched given all the time that has transpired since since 5/12), there would be no reason whatsoever for the court or Fitz to address the issue.

[onenote]

14. Libby's indictment wasn't sealed

Indictments are sealed by the court. In the Libby case, that never happened. Here's what Fitzgerald said the day the indictments were filed with the court:


"A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

[Snivi Yllom]

23. I was looking for that. Thanks

Scooter Libby was indicted Friday 10/28/05 and he resigned that day. The GJ voted that day.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. Molly? Is that you??? (I hope, I hope)

[Jersey Devil]

28. I stand corrected, but does that change anything?

The Libby indictment was not sealed and was voted on on the 28th. However, in the Rove case for TO to be right the indictment would have to be sealed after being voted on on 5/12 and when unsealed the only date that it would bear is the date it is filed in "open" court as I understand it. Whether he would or would not disclose the date it was voted on would seem to be up to him as far I can see.

[Coexist]

34. the filing date is stamped on the indictment - see here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html

[onenote]

3. it gets date stamped when filed with the court

not when its voted

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyidict.pdf

[5X]

4. Which means any date displayed would correspond to

when we all know there was an indictment, not May 12th.

[Jersey Devil]

10. That's my understanding - the date it becomes "open" to the public

As I said, it's been a while since I did serious criminal work, but I've seen hundreds of indictments and I can't recall a single one where the GJ dated it.

[Jazz2006]

39. No...

The GJ votes to indict.
The GJ and the prosecutor sign the indictment.
It is "returned" to a judge in court and filed with the court clerk at that time. It is the court clerk who date stamps it.

But unless and until it is "returned" to a judge as set out above, it has no force in law, and cannot be served on anyone.

The judge may order that the indictment be sealed.
If so, the court clerk seals it and nobody can disclose the return of the indictment unless and until it is unsealed.

[Jersey Devil]

8. Yes - it gets stamped when filed in OPEN court

not the date it was voted on by the GJ

[Jazz2006]

40. It gets stamped when it is "returned" to a judge...

which may or may not be the same date as the vote.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. The version on line is not the official doc

That one would be signed at the end by the Foreperson.

I would assume they notarize it with a seal and stamp and that one would be the one with the date that the indictment was recorded.

The one posted probably has this information omitted for privacy concerns.

[Jersey Devil]

9. Look at reply #3

The GJ does not date it. It is only dated when presented in "open court" as it says right on the court's stamp.

[Catrina]

17. True, and that's all that would be needed in this case, isn't it? From

what I've read, (regarding the Libby indictment, and at the time what many journalists thought might have been a Rove indictment last October) Fitzgerald could have had an indictment against Rove back then, but when he went to Rove's lawyers' office, the speculation was that Rove in an attempt to stop Fitz from filing the indictment, agreed to talk.

From what I read, Fitz wanted his cooperation, and could have refrained from filing the indictment until he investigated further, but held it as an 'incentive' for Rove to talk. The Grand Jury's term had expired but Fitzgerald is now using a new GJ.

If this is true, then what would be important would the filing date, not the date the jury handed it down. So, I don't see why this would be a problem for TO since their claim was that Friday was the day it would happen. Iow, a prosecutor doesn't have to go ahead and file, but I assume the 'scoop' was the Fitzgerald was going to do that last Friday.

If there's a filing date and it's Friday, then I think they can claim they were correct ~ just my opinion though, it could be wrong.

[Snivi Yllom]

21. Will Pitt claimed it would be dated May 12

.

[Guaranteed]

19. After it's public, Fitzy'll be able to answer more questions.

I don't think this is going to turn into the Bermuda Triangle.

It either happened or it didn't, and there are people out there who know the facts, for certain.

[Snivi Yllom]

11. NOT TRUE, the Libby indictment is dated 10/28/2005 link & photo enclosed

Clearly stamped October 28, 2005
the jury voted to indict him Wednesday the 26th. He was indicted Friday, the 28th.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html

[Jersey Devil]

12. What does "Filed in Open Court" mean to you?

It means, of course, the date it became public and was unsealed by the Court. It does not relate back to the date of the GJ vote. 10/28/05 was a Friday, the day Fitz announced the indictment and we know that it was previously sealed so the actual vote of the GJ was probably 10/26 or earlier.

[Snivi Yllom]

13. It was reported the date of the actual vote was the 28th

But he was not actually indicted until the indictment was filed in court. You are confused with the meaning of 'sealed'. Libby's indictment was not sealed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102600532.html
Grand Jury Hears Summary of Case On CIA Leak Probe
Decision on Charges May Come Friday

By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page A01

The prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation presented a summary of his case to a federal grand jury yesterday and is expected to announce a final decision on charges in the two-year-long probe tomorrow, according to people familiar with the case.

Even as Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald wrapped up his case, the legal team of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has been engaged in a furious effort to convince the prosecutor that Rove did not commit perjury during the course of the investigation, according to people close to the aide. The sources, who indicated that the effort intensified in recent weeks, said Rove still did not know last night whether he would be indicted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference

Courtesy of FDCH e-MEDIA
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:57 PM

FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.

Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.

A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

[onenote]

18. link to report on vote on 26th?

[Snivi Yllom]

20. here

Fitz gave his case summary on Libby on Wednesday, 2 days before Libby was indicted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102600532.html

[onenote]

24. still don't see anything about when the GJ voted the indictment

In fact the article says that "it was unclear whether Fitzgerald had spelled out the criminal charges he might ask them to consider, or whether he had asked them to vote on any proposed indictments. Fitzgerald's legal team did not present the results of a grand jury vote to the court yesterday, which he is required to do within days of such a vote."

[Snivi Yllom]

25. your article is correct. Fitz stated himellf the vote was 10/28

I corrected my posts

[Jersey Devil]

29. Me too, but does it change anything?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1257440&mesg_id=1257842

[Snivi Yllom]

15. .

.

[H2O Man]

"...and we know that it was previously sealed..."

Really? How?

[Jersey Devil]

33. corrected - initially that was assumed

but others here corrected me on that. Still, an indictment bears no date of voting by the GJ and unless Fitz thinks it is something worth talking about he doesn't have to disclose it.

[H2O Man]

35. It might be worth

reviewing what Mr. Fitzgerald said at the press conference last October.

[Jersey Devil]

36. Thanks and

I should have done it before posting. My comments about a "sealed" indictment caused some confusion.

[H2O Man]

37. It might have for some.

Those familiar know the indictment itself was not sealed. In a later court filing, Mr. Fitzgerald addressed the issue of what had been sealed.

[Catrina]

22. Oops, I just posted before seeing your post. Thanks, that answers

the questions I had. TO can claim to have been correct if the date of filing is May 12th.

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. The one posted at the official link

in the first post, does not have those stamps.

The stamped copy would be the original hardcopy filed at the court, which that apparently is a photocopy of. The documents that Fitzgerald is posting on line are the original PDF files, without the stamps and signatures. I think that is what is causing the confusion.

[WiseButAngrySara]

27. Interesting find Jersey Devil. Aren't you an attorney? I thought you, OLL,

and Seabiscuit were all lawyers based on your legal info. and knowledge on the Leopold threads?

[Jersey Devil]

30. Yes, but I was not sure of this

I haven't handled any heavy duty criminal cases in quite a while and thought maybe those who might currently be doing so might be aware of something that I am not.

[WiseButAngrySara]

32. I saw that above! I posted before I read the entire thread.... n/t

[theboss]

31. So, Fitzgerald is walking around with it in his brief case?

Where is it?

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

38. Oh dear. Let's hope that when Fitzgerald announces Rove's...

indictment that he mentions key dates. Otherwise, there will never be mutually-acceptable closure between the people who believe in Leopold/TruthOut's story and those who don't.

Well done for following that trail of thought.