Jeanine Pirro Has a Black Powder Problem - emptywheel

"The indictment included the same two counts charged in the criminal complaint, namely 18 U.S.C. 844(d) and 844(i). In asking the Court to accept the indictment, the government invoked D.C. Code § 11-1916(a), which provides that "[a] grand jury serving in the District of Columbia may take cognizance of all matters brought before it regardless of whether an indictment is returnable in the Federal or District of Columbia courts.""

"The Court recognizes that Chief Judge Boasberg recently upheld the propriety of this approach based on that statute, concluding that Section 11-1916(a) authorizes local D.C. grand juries to return indictments in U.S. District Court (and vice versa). But Judge Boasberg then stayed that ruling pending appeal, stating in part that "the public interest lies in letting the Court of Appeals decide this issue before the Government moves forward both on this case and in similar fashion on other cases.""

Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh required both sides to file views and post them publicly on whether a two-count indictment returned by a D.C. Superior Court grand jury is valid for prosecution in U.S. District Court. The indictment charges violations of 18 U.S.C. §844(d) and §844(i), mirroring the criminal complaint. The government relies on D.C. Code §11-1916(a) to justify using a local grand jury indictment in federal court. Chief Judge Boasberg previously upheld that authorization in United States v. Stewart but stayed the ruling pending appeal; Sharbaugh deferred acceptance pending briefing on whether that stay applies here.

Read at emptywheel