YES!!! JUDGE SPANKS DOJ IN BROADVIEW 6 CASE AND I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT AS WELL AS THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT FOR YOU!
By now you may have heard that the DOJ *dismissed* the charges against the so-called “Broadview 6” – charged with interfering with ICE operations in Chicago – after Judge April Perry (we *love* her) RIPPED the DOJ a new icehole! (See what I did there?)
To bring you up to speed, the original indictments (included for Notes from the Front members) charged five political folks and a musician: two former congressional candidates (Catherine Sharp and Kat Abughazaleh), an Abughazaleh staffer (Andre Martin), an Oak Park village trustee (Brian Straw), a person on the 45th Ward Democratic committee (Michael Rabbitt) and the musician (Joselyn Walsh). Then the DOJ dropped the charges against two of them (Catherine Sharp and Joselyn Walsh).
The Court (Judge Perry) asked to see the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. And the DOJ produced – to the Court – *redacted* transcripts of the grand jury proceedings.
The Court asked to see unredacted transcripts.
So the DOJ *dropped* the felony charges down to misdemeanor charges. You see, and as you will read in the 60-page transcript of Thursday’s hearing (included for Notes from the Front members), by dropping the felony charges the DOJ no longer had to produce the transcripts because you don’t need a grand jury indictment to charge a misdemeanor; you only need to create a charging document known as the “information”. So by getting rid of the felony charges the DOJ was getting rid of the need to produce the unredacted transcripts to the Court.
Or so it thought.
Because next the *defendants* filed a motion to force the disclosure of the unredacted transcripts because they smelled something fishy, and that smell was emanating from the DOJ.
During the hearing regarding the defendants’ motion to get at the unredacted transcript of the grand jury proceedings, the Court asked the DOJ if they objected, and the DOJ said that it did not.
And so the unredacted transcripts of the grand jury proceedings were delivered to the Court.
And that, you see, is when the prosecutorial misconduct came to light, *including one of the prosecutors MEETING WITH A GRAND JUROR OUTSIDE OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS!*
(If you have never seen the movie “Suspect”, and I’m betting that few of you have because it seems that I’m the only one who has seen it other than the people I’ve made watch it, I *highly* recommend it! Don’t let the fact that Cher is in it put you off – if that would; it’s got a great cast and a great story line! And if you *have* seen it, well, then you know what a big deal jury tampering is!)
And that’s not all!
The prosecutors also *excused* grand jurors who did not agree with the government.
Additionally, it came to light that one of the prosecutors employed a tactic called “vouching” which means basically vouching *to the grand jurors* that the government’s case is legitimate and strong. You see, the grand jury is supposed to be impartial and to look at the evidence and arrive at a position *on its own*, with no kibitzing from the prosecutors. And remember that unlike a trial and trial jury, there is nobody there putting on a defense. So the prosecutors aren’t supposed to, you know, prosecute, they are only supposed to present the facts, without any attempt to sway the grand jury to indict.
And the evidence of this misconduct was all *redacted* in the redacted version.
Said Judge Perry during the hearing, “Although I am not going to prejudge the issue without a hearing, I will say that I was incredibly shocked by the redactions that were made. I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts involving prosecutors who are the most junior of prosecutors to several U.S. Attorneys who appeared before the grand jury. I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts.”
Then Judge Perry goes on to smack the bejesus (yes, that’s a legal term) out of the DOJ, it’s…it needs to be made into a movie, seriously.
At one point she admonishes the DOJ, and I quote (gosh I love this line):
“Your sole goal is to do justice. Your client is justice itself.”
OMG!! “Your client is justice itself.”
Man I hope this gets made into a movie!
A *very* chastened Andrew Boutros, the DOJ attorney in charge of the case, nearly tripped over himself trying to undo the damage during the hearing, saying, and I again quote, “It is my very sincere belief, Your Honor, that no prosecutor acted intentionally in misleading you, and that there was no desire to mislead the Court and no deliberate misconduct on the part of the prosecutor,” and “I was completely unaware of any vouching that took place in the grand jury, and only became aware of it on either April 27 or the 28th. And immediately when I learned about that vouching, the next day I moved to dismiss the indictment.”
Judge Perry had lots more words for Mr. Boutros.
And now all of the charges have been dropped, although the docket is still open as, for one thing, there may be a question of sanctions.
Oh, and, as a little lagniappe, yesterday Mr. Boutros filed a one-pager replacing himself with a new DOJ attorney (also included for Notes from the Front members). (It’s possible that he was just adding her, but my bet is that she’s taking the lead now.)
Notes from the Front members: The original indictment, the transcript of Thursday’s hearing (remember this is a recording of the *actual hearing*), and the notice of a new DOJ attorney, are in your inbox now!
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member this document is a great reason to join! For just $5 a month you can stop relying on this platform’s algorithms to show you my updates *and* get the included documents! *And* help keep me in that sweet elixer of productivity, coffee! :~) Join now to get these documents and all of the other cool benefits of being a Notes from the Front member! Join here:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/yes-judge-spanks-doj-in-broadview
Don’t have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite – it’s like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://notesfromthefront.fyi
New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here’s how: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word “lagniappe”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about lagniappes (or even what it means)! ;~)
P.P.S. Your mission over the long weekend, if you choose to accept it, is to watch Suspect and report back here as to what you thought of it. If you ask me, Liam Neeson playing a homeless deaf mute on trial for murder is worth the price of admission alone although, again, I love the entire movie.
Source