The Court of Appeal restricts the process of disclosure of grand jury information in the Mueller Report

Legal

The court broke up, 2-1, in a closely watched case that could affect the publication of the special advocate's review.

On Friday, a federal appeals court raised a barrier to disclosure of grand jury information in the final report of special advocate Robert Mueller that was made public, but the decision should not slow down the disclosure of this information in Congress.

The decision of a split group of three judges of the District Court Circuit Appeals Court did not directly address Mueller's report, but implied a grand jury investigation more than six decades ago over the disappearance of Columbia University professor and political activist Jesús Galíndez.

History continues below

In the new decision, the committee concluded by a majority that federal district court judges did not have the power to order the disclosure of generally secret grand jury documents, except in situations specifically authorized by a decision of the Federal Court.

While no exceptions cover cases of intense political or historical interest, the courts have repeatedly stated that they have "the inherent power" to disclose such disclosures in unusual cases.

However, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday was in line with the Department of Justice's position that these decisions were flawed and a formal change to the grand jury secrecy rule would be necessary to give this power to judges.

"We agree with the government's interpretation of the rule," said Judge Douglas Ginsburg, joined by Justice Greg Katsas. "The contrary reading … that would allow the district court to create new exceptions, considering it to be good public policy – would make the detailed list of exceptions merely precarious and would unlawfully allow the court to" circumvent "or "Disregard" a federal rule. penal procedure. "

The impact of the new decision in the ongoing battle over the disclosure of the Mueller report could, however, be limited, as the Democrat-controlled House already requires the full submission of the special advocate, including information about the grand jury.

On Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee of the House passed a resolution authorizing President Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) To assign the full report and all documents to support. Such a summons may be sufficient to give the Chamber access to grand jury information under an existing exception for documents requested in a "court proceeding".

In 1974, all members of the CC circuit rejected the challenge of Judge John Sirica's decision to allow the disclosure of Grand Jury evidence to the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the involvement President Richard Nixon in Watergate.

However, to take full advantage of this precedent, chamber democrats may have to formally initiate an impeachment investigation against Trump – something that House leaders have tried to avoid so far.

The new decision poses a more serious problem at the request of a press group filed earlier this week asking a federal judge to approve the public disclosure of the grand jury information contained in Mueller's report. The decision of the DC circuit could block this effort.

Sri Srinivasan, a third judge assigned to the high jury case that was tried on Friday, dissociated himself from the decision. Srinivasan stated that the Watergate judgment of 1974 had upheld the principle that judges have the inherent power to disclose information about the grand jury for reasons that are not explicitly mentioned in the rule.

"For these reasons, when this Court … endorsed Justice Sirica's approach, we have, in my view, asserted its understanding that a district court retains the discretion to disclose grand jury materials outside of Canada. exceptions provided for in Rule 6 (e), "wrote Srinivasan. Since this decision was made by the entire court, the three judges are not allowed to deviate, said Srinivasan.

The decision on Friday divided the panel into partisan lines. Srinivasan is a person named by President Barack Obama, while Ginsburg is a person named by President Ronald Reagan and Katsas is the only judge on the DC circuit appointed by President Donald Trump.

The author and lawyer who requested the publication of Galíndez archives, which has been in existence for six years, Stuart McKeever, could ask all members of the Supreme Court of Canada circuit to seize of the matter or ask the Supreme Court to consider it.

The case could be considered by a high court as federal appeal courts are divided on what judges have the power to do when asked to authorize the disclosure of documents before a grand jury for reasons that are not mentioned in the rule.