Chicago US Attorney's Office Claims AUSAs Are Not Responsible for What They Witness in a Grand Jury - emptywheel

The Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office responded to Sami Khan’s motion to dismiss his indictment, seeking to delay a July 9 trial. The motion alleges misconduct similar to alleged issues in the Broadview 6 (-2) case, involving statements made to a grand jury during multiple sessions. The government states that AUSA Guzman was present for only two grand jury sessions before the indictment and disputes that statements made during those sessions put her on notice of misconduct. The filing asserts that Guzman ordered transcripts of all colloquies only after being shown the relevant Broadview 6 transcript portion. A cited explanation from Matthew Skiba indicates he lacked experience and did not recognize the significance of the alleged vouching problem.

"The filing does provide a bunch of dates (which I lay out below). But before it does so, it includes this paragraph, describing how Kelly Guzman, who signed this filing, was not on notice of misconduct until she saw the grand jury transcripts from the Broadview 6 (-2) case. 8. Khan cites examples in Exhibit B to his Motion to Dismiss of what he claims are improper statements by AUSA A to the grand jury during eight of the 14 sessions in this case. AUSA Guzman was present for two sessions with AUSA A-the first appearance and the last appearance before the indictment was issued. The DOJ Trial Attorney was also present during the last session. The government disputes Khan's claim that AUSA A's statements, made during the two sessions in which AUSA Guzman was present with AUSA A, put AUSA Guzman on notice of misconduct by AUSA A before the grand jury."

"At the first indication that there could be any reason to investigate, that is, after she was shown the portion of the transcript in the Broadview 6 case, AUSA Guzman ordered transcripts of all colloquies. [my emphasis] There's a problem with that already. In the Broadview case, Matthew Skiba credibly explained that he was too inexperienced to realize how big a problem the alleged vouching was."

"So in full candor, Your Honor, I started with this office on July 14th. I had been with the office for less than two months. This was the second time I was before a grand jury. The first time was a simple PSN case. Ms. Mecklenberg is not here to defend herself. I am not trying to deflect blame, but I was with a 20-years-plus senior veteran. I remember what you ref"

Read at emptywheel