According to reporting at CNN, Donald Trump is facing 34 counts of Falsification of Business Records.
Let’s leave aside the flaws in the case, as currently reported: the issue of selective prosecution; the escalation to a felony by use of a federal statute over which Alvin Bragg has no jurisdiction; the question of how a 2016 event comes within the statute of limitations on the purported charges.
Let’s instead ask: How does CNN have this “34 charges” info?
The report of 34 counts of Falsification of Business Records is as per John Miller, reporting on-air at CNN:
![Twitter avatar for @girlsreallyrule](https://substackcdn.com/image/twitter_name/w_96/girlsreallyrule.jpg)
Now, I worked for John Miller. I doubt very much he is getting this wrong – Miller is a pro. If he says that “his sources” are telling him this very specific “34” number – it’s almost certainly accurate.
Assuming it is, the problem is that grand jury indictments are – by law – secret. That information is not supposed to be public.
As per New York Criminal Procedure Law § 190.25:
4. (a) Grand jury proceedings are secret, and no grand juror, or other person… may, except in the lawful discharge of his duties or upon written order of the court, disclose the nature or substance of any grand jury testimony, evidence, or any decision, result or other matter attending a grand jury proceeding.
This is black-letter law, and it is given serious deference every day in the New York criminal courts.
So, in light of that -- and in light of the equities involved in this “historic” case – where is the leak investigation into this unlawful grand jury disclosure?
Understand: Miller and CNN don’t have the culpability here – they’re just doing their jobs. They have the First Amendment on their side. The culpability here resides with the leaker.
And in light of the timing – as both sides of the aisle were calling into serious question the validity of Bragg’s case – it seems likely that someone in Bragg’s apparatus is the “source” Miller referred to on-air. A source looking to change the narrative by leaking 34 stacked counts of the same charge.
This is far from an academic question. Aside from the potential misconduct here, a near-certainty in this case is that Donald Trump’s attorneys will make a motion for a change of venue. In light of the fact that secret grand jury testimony may have been leaked by someone in the venue in question, that motion should be given serious consideration.
But Donald Trump’s lawyers should not only file for a change of venue. They should refer Bragg’s office to the New York State Bar Disciplinary Committee for potentially violating this basic tenet of Criminal Procedure Law, if in fact an attorney is the leaker.
They should also refer the matter to the New York State Attorney General, because there is a potential criminal charge here. Under New York criminal law, the charge is Unlawful Grand Jury Disclosure:
§ 215.70 Unlawful grand jury disclosure
A person is guilty of unlawful grand jury disclosure when, being a grand juror, a public prosecutor, a grand jury stenographer, a grand jury interpreter, a police officer or a peace officer guarding a witness in a grand jury proceeding, or a clerk, attendant, warden or other public servant having official duties in or about a grand jury room or proceeding, or a public officer or public employee, he intentionally discloses to another the nature or substance of any grand jury testimony, or any decision, result or other matter attending a grand jury proceeding which is required by law to be kept secret, except in the proper discharge of his official duties or upon written order of the court.
Unlawful grand jury disclosure is a class E felony.
That’s right. A real felony.
If the report is accurate, this statute clearly applies here. Someone is leaking, likely to validate a questionable indictment by listing the stacked charges against Donald Trump, and to potentially taint the jury pool.
Does nobody in our legal system care, just because Donald Trump is the target?
The last time this charge received significant public attention was in the notorious Tawana Brawley case, in the late 1980’s. In that instance, the New York State Attorney General launched an investigation after just such a grand jury leak.
Do the rights of a former U.S. President not merit similar protection?
A further likely “tell” here is that CNN was used. We’ve seen this conduct before. Without entering into the merits of the case against Roger Stone, the fact that CNN was in-place in 2019 with camera crews for a SWAT-level arrest at the home of a 67-year-old man… (something, by the way, that CNN states was based on “a hunch”).
In light of the fact that it is Alvin Bragg’s office which may well be implicated, a special prosecutor or the NYS Attorney General should publicly initiate an investigation into this genuine felony.
Failure to do that only further calls into question the true motivation and propriety of this entire affair.
well paul, as u well know, there are hundreds of ppl involved in a grand jury.....from the big wig elected DA, the asst. ADAs, the formerly employed ADAs ( ! ) , the current junior or maybe not so junior prosecuting atty., the stenographers, the typists who work for the stenographers, all the way down to the copy assistant in the basement and everyone in between . given this long line of humans who have access to the " secrets ", it wud seem impossible to prove who leaked what and to whom and when. ( and i too have a deep admiration for john miller, ( he did terrific work on Gotti, remember ? ) but lets not be so quick to give him a pass, . but then again, he wud be able to invoke some sort of journalistic privilege in terms of NOT disclosing his sources, i suppose, no ? and btw , what was the OUTCOME on the leak prosecution on T. Brawley ? i don't recall, but i think it went nowhere. and i think the main reason these leak cases go nowhere is b/c the air is all sucked out of the room on the underlying MAIN case, as will be the sitch here on DJT. Anyways, yes, there WILL be a whole host of pre=trial motions by Tacopina and Co., to dismiss prior to trial and they will probly go up to the App. Div. as well ....... .so, no trial in 2023 or even 2024 here, .... the main goal of DJT wud be ,i think, to postpone all of it until after election day 2024 , and i dont think that will be difficult. as far as an ultimate outcome is concerned i think we are looking at a conviction on 2 or 3 minor misds.,
(possibly even via plea and not by verdict if the deal is SWEET enough, ... 'the art of the deal ? " ) ..... sentence ? . . a fine imposed and that will be that . .no jail of course, and all or most of his legal fees will be paid by the MAGA folks.... after all, they put up the $ 3 mill for the big shot Fla lawyer who is handling the mar -a -lago raid, so y wudn't they do the same for the Bragg - brag .? . . . . or shud we call it the Grab-Bag ? . Anyways, as usual, we readers who grabbed our own JD degrees ages ago always enjoy your lively & CRISP "PD / JD" take on things. .....keep up the good work !
A great question...