Opinion ID: 76461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Indictment and Arrest

Text: 7 On January 30, 1998, the United States served the Aisenbergs with subpoenas to appear before the grand jury. The Aisenbergs communicated their unequivocal intent to invoke the Fifth Amendment before the grand jury and so advised the government through correspondence and a hearing before the district court. The government insisted that the Aisenbergs still appear. On February 11, 1998, the Aisenbergs appeared before the grand jury, invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, and refused to answer most questions. 8 On September 9, 1999, a federal grand jury returned a seven-count indictment against the Aisenbergs. 2 The indictment charged the Aisenbergs with one count of conspiracy to make false statements of material facts to law enforcement officials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and with six counts of making false statements of material facts to law enforcement officials during the initial missing child report and during the subsequent investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1002. On the same day, the Aisenbergs were arrested in Maryland, where they had moved. 9 The Aisenbergs appeared at an initial hearing at which the government urged the magistrate judge (1) to require the Aisenbergs to submit to urinalysis and (2) to require investigation by a social services professional to protect the Aisenbergs' other two children. During that hearing, an Assistant United States Attorney asserted that the government had in its possession a taped statement in which Steven Aisenberg stated, I wish I hadn't harmed her. It was the cocaine. The government also claimed to have in its possession taped statements indicating that the Aisenbergs were drugged. As will be discussed later, the district court ultimately determined that the recordings purportedly containing these alleged statements were largely inaudible and the magistrate judge found them unintelligible. 3