Slashdot Mirror
Witness In Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury Hearing Posts Transcript of Questioning
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."
Bob Wiechering: Mr. House, I notice you are taking notes. Attempting to create your own transcript is a violation of rule 6(e) of this grand jury. We have brought this to the attention of your counsel, and although he feels differently on the matter, we assert that you must stop taking notes at this time.
David House: Let me consult with my attorney.
[House leaves the grand jury room and returns one minute later]
David House: My lawyer asks that you refer all questions about notes to him.
It would seem that the rule in question now puts him in contempt of court? It appears to explicitly mention what is happening here. I wonder what his lawyer told him about taking these notes and then releasing them.
My work here is dung.
Investigative journalism is the right way to make public information that you think the should be known.
Nobody invited a journalist to visit and record the proceedings, so this is the only way for the public's interest to be served. Another way would be to eliminate secret courts, and secret court proceedings, which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a democracy.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, grand juries are on circumstance where secrecy makes sense. Grand juries don't convict people, they are responsible for deciding if there's sufficient evidence of a crime to go ahead with the prosecution. Keeping such hearing secret means that people are more willing to give information they might not want to give in open court if it is personally embarrassing or if it has a negative aspect to people they don't want to piss off. It also means that a prosecutor can't just use the threat of bringing someone in front of a jury where they'll air all the person's dirty laundry. Overall, the secrecy of grand juries helps the little guy.
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.)