Witness In Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury Hearing Posts Transcript of Questioning 184
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "A year ago, free information advocate and Bradley Manning supporter David House was subpoenaed to testify in the grand jury investigation of WikiLeaks that's taking place in Alexandria, Virginia. Now he's released a transcript of his interrogation that he produced by taking handwritten notes on a legal pad and handing pages to his lawyer during their consultations. Though House pled the fifth and didn't tell the prosecutors much, the notes show the prosecution attorneys focusing their questions on Boston-area hackers as well as Tor developer and WikiLeaks supporter Jacob Appelbaum."
This is just... boring (Score:1, Informative)
We get it: powerful, corrupt people are annoyed that stuff about them is being revealed to the world, and they want to go through the justice theatre to silence those who leak information.
If you play them at their game, they win.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Informative)
My reading of that doesn't seem to include the person actually being questioned.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure his lawyer told him not to.
Now as to if he'll get in trouble, well I don't know. Witnesses aren't part of the grand jury secrecy rule. The jurors themselves, the court recorder, the prosecution, they all have to keep their mouths shut (until after it is all done). However the witnesses, not so much.
However, he created a transcript, which may well put hi in violation. Though he wasn't the official recorder/transcriber, he was recording the proceedings. So that may have put him, or at least his notes, under the secrecy ruling.
I don't know if there is any case law on this. They probably could try and get him in trouble for this. If they'd be successful, who knows?
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but that seems to fail to name witnesses and defendents.
(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).
Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;
(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;
(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).
(ii) any government personnelâ"including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign governmentâ"that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or
(iii) a person authorized by 18 U.S.C. Â3322.
is he fall into any of those catagories?
Re:A right way and a wrong way (Score:5, Informative)
Be careful here. If, say, you are in a divorce with your wife, do you want the world to know the gory details?
You're missing the difference between a civil suit and a criminal one.
In a civil suit, two civilian (hence "civil") parties are in dispute and require the court's assistance in reaching a resolution. A divorce is a good example. (I will add as a footnote that, at least here in Canada, ALL court proceedings are a matter of public record, divorces included. Therefore if you seek the court's assistance in resolving your divorce it will become a matter of public record. Whether or not that ought to be the case is something I won't get into since it would take me into a long editorializing rant full of my personal opinions and that's quite OT).
In a criminal suit it's the government (presumably the "public") against a citizen who has committed a crime.
In a free and open society all criminal suits ought to be a matter of public record and be open because it's one of the best tools we have for keeping the government honest and fair. That's why we have jury trials and public records and transcriptions etc. It's also a powerful tool to aid in proving someone's innocence after they were falsely convicted (by proving mistrials etc.)
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:4, Informative)
This is correct. I used to be a court reporter. The section regarding "a person who transcribes recorded testimony" exists to cover the independent contractors who take audio recordings from the court reporter and do all the boring typing stuff for us. We have to proofread it against the audio again when we get it back before it can be certified as an official transcript.
The contention that a witness can't take notes or can't share them afterwards is pretty remarkable.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Informative)
You apparently haven't seen http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/ [iraqwarlogs.com], which is a good place to start. Also check out http://www.collateralmurder.com/ [collateralmurder.com].
There's evidence of many war crimes committed by the US, not merely something embarrassing. Things like this NEED to be exposed, not hidden away with the reasoning of "You took an oath to keep it secret." Sometimes you have to break an oath if the ones who told you to keep quiet are doing evil things.