U.S. v. Mohammad, N.D. Ohio, 3:15-cv-358 (May 11, 2017)


Grand jury secrecy exists to permit witness testimony without fear of reprisal, but is not absolute.  Limited access to information about specific issues may be shown to be needed where grounds for dismissal of an indictment exist.  Such requests cannot be sustained, however, where their sole purpose is to challenge the sufficiency of evidence.  

Petitioners argue that they were indicted in relation to an organization not yet determined to be a terrorist organization and in connections to donations individuals not connected to terrorism until after support was given, making “knowling support” impossible.  

The assertion that serious constitutional questions are present in the case without more will not support a facial challenge, particularly where no evidence has been presented showing why the need for disclosure outweighs the need for secrecy, and were a request for all records is not narrowly tailored to a particularized need.

United States v. Mohammad (N.D. Ohio, 2017)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s