White-Collar Lawyers: What to Know About Mueller's Trump-Russia Grand Jury
Special counsel Robert Mueller has empaneled a grand jury to investigate Russian interference in last year's presidential elections.
August 03, 2017 at 07:26 PM
5 minute read
How can you follow along with a grand jury process when the whole thing is secret? Ask a white-collar defense lawyer.
Special counsel Robert Mueller has convened a grand jury to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with President Donald Trump's presidential campaign, according to a new report from The Wall Street Journal Thursday. According to Reuters, that grand jury has issued subpoenas related to a meeting between Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer last year.
The news indicates that Mueller and his team of 16 lawyers are now issuing subpoenas and may also call witnesses to testify under oath, if they haven't already. The grand jury is in Washington, D.C., and began its work in the past few weeks, the Journal report said.
A grand jury investigation is secret. Neither jury members, prosecutors or agents involved are allowed to discuss it. So what's important to watch and know as the process unfolds? Here's what white-collar lawyers say:
Mueller has reached a new level. The role of a grand jury is to listen to evidence brought by federal prosecutors and, when the time comes, decide whether to issue an indictment. The fact Mueller has turned to the grand jury process, which allows him to issue subpoenas for a broad range of documents, means his investigation has reached a different level, said Perkins Coie partner Barak Cohen. Cohen is a former federal prosecutor who chairs the firm's Washington, D.C., commercial litigation practice.
“Prosecutors don't just open grand juries,” Cohen said. “This should tell you that Mueller now has enough evidence of a crime having been committed.There's enough evidence to open a grand jury.”
It's about to get leaky. The only people who can legally talk about what happens in the room during a grand jury investigation are the witnesses. But William Jeffress, a partner at Baker Botts who defends corporations and individuals in federal criminal proceedings, said information can get out other ways, too. A witness could tell a friend about the experience, and the friend could leak the information. A defense lawyer for a witness could say something offhand.
“Leaks are coming,” Jeffress said.
Another option? Reporters can loiter around the federal courthouse in D.C. and report on comings and goings. But the grand jury can meet sporadically, so there's no way to know for sure when it's meeting.
“There's a reason why reporters are always waiting [around the courthouse],” Cohen said.
Who is getting subpoenaed? Who are the witnesses? During a grand jury investigation, prosecutors can issue subpoenas for a wide range of documents, explained former federal prosecutor Jason Jones, now a partner in King & Spalding's special matters and investigations practice. The subpoenas and documents that follow, like the entire investigation, are secret. But again, those on the receiving end can talk about them.
Jeffress said documents are one thing, but it gets interesting once Mueller starts calling witnesses to testify under oath.
“Issuing subpoenas for documents means very little,” Jeffress said. “It just means they've concluded they need the law to get documents. When they start issuing subpoenas for testimony, it means they're serious.”
Watch for subpoena battles. When someone receives a subpoena, they can fight it if they don't want to comply, Jones said.
Why wouldn't someone comply? Maybe they think the request violates their Fourth Amendment right to privacy or that it's beyond the scope of Mueller's inquiry. Fighting the subpoena would involve filing a motion with a district court judge in D.C. Those motions would likely be redacted, but again, leakers may point out when such a fight is ongoing.
What about immunity? Pay attention if there's news a witness was granted immunity.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
Democratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readWhen Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Trump Election-Interference Prosecution Appears on Course to Wind Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250