"Even assuming the defendant could prove that the government violated the Fourth Amendment or attorney-client privilege in its grand jury presentation (and to be clear, he cannot), the remedy would be to suppress that evidence at trial-not to dismiss the indictment. So, the defendant has not shown that "a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). He is not entitled to access grand jury material."
"On the morning of September 25, 2025, the team was preparing for an indictment of James Comey, to occur later that afternoon. SA Warren provided case agent SA Miles Starr and an FBI Office of General Counsel (OGC) attorney a limited overview of the text message communications to and from "Michael Garcia" (now understood to be Daniel Richman). SA Warren advised SA Starr and the FBI OGC attorney that some of the messages appeared to reference potential future legal representation."
The government asserts that Comey has not demonstrated a need to review grand jury proceedings because no privileged or Fourth Amendment-protected material was presented and, even if present, dismissal of the indictment is not an appropriate remedy. The claimed remedy for any such violation would be suppression of evidence at trial rather than striking the indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). Problems exist with the government's account: Miles Starr received an oral briefing about communications involving Daniel Richman the morning of the presentment, and a tainted FBI agent later produced a written document limited to matters before May 11. On September 25, 2025, SA Warren provided an overview of texts to and from "Michael Garcia" and informed colleagues that some messages referenced potential future legal representation.
Read at emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]