Opinion ID: 663689
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Position of the Movants

Text: 21 The movants opposing the release of the Report remind us that the Special Division, in connection with any release of the Final Report, shall make such orders as are appropriate to protect the rights of any individual named in the Report. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 595(b)(3) (1982) (emphasis added). They note the contrast between this mandatory duty and the permissive language empowering us to order the release of the Report: The division of the court may release to the Congress, the public, and others such portions of the Report as the division deems appropriate. Id. They charge, accurately, that the Report repeatedly accuses named individuals of crimes, although in many instances the individual was never indicted, if indicted was never convicted, or if convicted the conviction was reversed. These accusations include charges that named individuals were guilty of a conspiracy charged in a count that was dismissed before trial, that various named public officials engaged in efforts to obstruct justice, where such individuals were never indicted, let alone convicted, and instances in which the Report charges that individuals were factually guilty even though the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had reversed the only conviction relevant to the charge under discussion. Our review of the Report confirms that the movants' charges are accurate. The Report is rife with accusations of guilt of criminal conduct against persons never indicted or convicted. 22 The movants then argue that the Court cannot, consistent with its obligation to protect the rights of the individuals named, allow the release of what they fear will be considered an official document accusing them and others of crimes when, in some instances they have never been afforded even the determination of probable cause by a grand jury, let alone a constitutionally governed trial at which the government would have the burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a strong argument. In the courts of the United States, any person charged with a felony has the right to have a grand jury pass on the probable cause to believe him guilty and has the further right, with a plethora of attendant constitutional protections, to stand innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of his peers. U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI. 23 The Independent Counsel, though not the normal type of federal prosecutor, is a federal prosecutor. As Attorney General and later Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson observed: 24 The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. 25 Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 24 JUDICATURE 18, 18 (1940) (address delivered at the Second Annual Conference of United States Attorneys, April 1, 1940). 26 Consistent with the power and responsibility of their office, prosecutors do not issue reports, and they do not pronounce persons guilty of crimes who have not been indicted, tried, and convicted. The filing of reports by Independent Counsels is a complete departure from the authority of a United States Attorney and is contrary to the practice in federal grand jury investigations. In re Sealed Motion, 880 F.2d 1367, 1369-70 (D.C.Cir.1989).