I just posted two posts about a motion that I learned thereafter was filed under seal. It apparently became public by a computer glitch (as near as I can figure out) and was supposed to remain sealed, I have just been told.
I’m an officer of the court where this motion was filed, and while not counsel in any related case, I do feel an obligation to respect the seal and have pulled the posts down. They may be “toothpaste out of the tube” but I feel an obligation to do what I can do based on my status as a court officer.
The clearest instruction I can remember about classified information is that it must always be marked as such. Ideally, the whole document (or medium) is marked with the highest classification therein, and the parts that are classified are also marked. Don’t courts follow similar procedures regarding sealed orders, papers, whatever?
Well, it was most enlightening. And IF we don’t see any future prosecutions based upon all of that information provided by Langston (that supposedly warrants a reduced sentence), there will be some splainin’ to do from the US Atty office.
Oops. I guess that was a PDF I shouldn’t have emailed to friends, then. Unfortunately, I have no way to “unsend” those emails, or I’d do so.
it–guy, hang onto it. It may be useful later in the event there is any derailment of further prosecutions.
Cujo @1
Some filings are obviously sensitive. Since everybody having access to them are lawyers or other professionals, e.g., judges or probation officers, there is no need to mark them “classified.” One of the things lawyers are supposedly good for is keeping their mouths shut without being told.
The United States Courts ain’t the military. They are courts. One is not drafted into the courts but must apply for membership and membership is very fragile.
In federal criminal practice plea agreements are normally not viewable by the public (although not never). Indeed, the transcripts of plea hearings are sometimes sealed.
There is an option when filing ECF documents to file them “sealed.” 5K1.1 motions and pre-sentence reports are never public (for reasons immediately obvious if one reads to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the motion that was published). I suspect clerical staff may have from negligence failed to use the “sealed” filing option.
In any event one does not need a watermark to realize that particular 5K1.1 motion was highly sensitive.
The motion was publicly available on pacer, from which any reasonable person would conclude it was public information.
That’s right. If it shows up on PACER, it’s public information by the very nature of its filing on a public database. You can’t be faulted at all for the posts, and did the right thing by taking them down after being contacted about the seal.
Actually, Willie McBain, my work with the military (as a defense contractor) was done voluntarily. The only times I’ve been an officer of the court, I was drafted.
Thanks for the explanation, though.
It was on Pacer. It ain’t your fault. The glitch belongs to someone in the Clerk’s office, not to you. Carry on.
Well, disregarding what you took down, has anyone heard anything about Joey Langston lately? Reckon he knows anything on Dickie that hasn’t come to light?
They did the same thing over on yallpolitics and also took down their posts. Big uh-oh on whoever filed it!
3rdsouth in 10:
uh, yes.
My point, NMC, is that while you did the right thing, as an attorney, once the error came to your attention, there still just ain’t no holding back that big smoking blast furnace called Truth, and truth gets around better and faster than its nearest rival: rumors. And once truth gets out, it stays around, so don’t beat yourself up over this.
I’m ok, 3rd South, and thank you. But the answer to the question you asked was “yes.” Again, thanks.
I did what my varied duties called for and will now watch and see what happens. I wish to live in a world where truth wants its way out. And think you do to!
So that is why my cell has been lighting up today. I know nothing is ever really sealed in State court but i thought Feds had it down.
It was no “computer glitch.” It was human error. The USA’s office has ample experience in filing 5k1 motions under seal. The court has simple, straight-forward, easy to follow procedures … but someone at the USA’s shop was asleep at the switch. They’ll get an earful.
Well, Ben, it would indeed be a glitch if the USA filed it “under seal” but the Clerk didn’t “seal” it. I agree someone will get an earful, but I ain’t sure it will be someone at the USA’s shop. And putting aside, for the moment, the incentive for saving his own skin, Joey’s sounding downright patriotic in the eyes of the Government. Sorta like the kinda guy who would take an extra stamp back into the Post Office if he only paid for a dozen and discovered, out in his car, that he actually had thirteen. I don’t know much about these prosecutions, but isn’t it a fair inference that he may have said to the G-men, “You gentlemen have been asking me only about the cases you seem to already know about — would you like to know about some more cases that you don’t appear to know about?”
http://www.thedmonline.com/
It’s been a long time since January, February 2008 and December 2007.
What is attorney Langston being charged with?
Bribing the Judge in Jackson?
All goes back to the Scruggs case.
It is all history as far as politics and elections are concerned.
Sen. Wicker is the Senator and Rep. Travis Childers. is our Representative. They will both serve our districts well.
TS at 17
The motion may have been filed using the electronic filing system, in which case the person e-filing the document is responsible for selecting the proper options, including filing sealed pleadings.
What a cabal.
Apparently, there is still much to await and watch unfold !
The document may be resurfacing … http://paulquinn.wordpress.com/
I agree with NMC’s decision to remove the posting given the intention to be under seal; however, similar to trying to un-ring a rung bell. Though the Clerk’s office or the US Atty’s office did the ringing.
DM Writer #18: read more closely next time. You got a lot of things wrong. This was also to be filed under seal, and was mistakenly made public. It is unethical to publish this now and it should be removed immediately. Especially since you are reporting incorrectly and the correct information is no longer available. You are poisoning the public (possible jury pool) with incorrect information. Shame on you. You will never be respected as a journalist with this type of history.
I don’t practice much criminal law and I have not handled any federal criminal cases. With that being said does anyone know what the federal sentencing guidelines reccomend as a sentence for Langston that the Government is suggesting a downward departure from? Also when the Government suggests a downward departure do they typically reccomend to the Court what the sentence should be or just that the sentence be less then the guidelines reccomend?
Amicus @ 23 (et al.): The USA’s office dropped the ball on this one. Totally. The clerk’s office had nothing to do with it. You can safely lay all the blame at the feet of the USA’s office. And you can rest assured they’re getting an earful about it.
Reader @ 24: The government had available a process for sealing its 5K1 motion. Those processes are about as routine and simple as any clerical procedure can be. The government misfiled the document. Maybe it was just a bone-headed error by someone who knew better or is accountable for knowing better … maybe it was the government’s way of intentionally letting some juicy tidbits enter the stream of information for purposes known only to the USA. This DoJ and this USA’s administration have unclean hands in more than a few things under their purview, in my opinion, of course.
I’m an old cynic, but I distrust this DoJ and this USA’s office, particularly in all things related to Scruggs. Have you ever heard of a 5K1 motion being leaked in any other prosecution in the Northern District? I didn’t think so.
You don’t know whether the misfiling was an error or an intentional act. Neither does DM. But his job is to report the information he obtains. That’s the news profession’s calling and duty. I fail to see that he reported anything “incorrectly,” as you put it, and I assure you there’s no jury pool to taint. Langston has had his day in court … he copped a plea rather than roll the dice on a jury trial, and there sure as heck won’t be any jury consideration of a routine government’s motion for downward departure.
And this isn’t a “government secrets” case that involves national security or international relations, so there’s no harm to the Republic or its citizenry. Moreover, there’s no way revelation of this information can prejudice Langston—the trial judge is going to give the motion the same consideration and judgment he would have given it had it been filed properly.
No harm, no foul.
I sure as hell respect DM for this (and other) work. But that’s just me.
I respect DM also. If DM ain’t a lawyer, he ain’t bound by the same constraints as NMC. And I agree on no foul.