mazel tov! and thanks.

Bravo!

And the Stranger would be much more enjoyable if it didn't regularly take 15 seconds and longer to download on Safari. A month ago it was taking twice that long, then some tech fairy fixed it and now it's crapping out again.

Could someone provide a one paragraph summary in comments and the article of what specifically changed from the Old Standard to the New Standard, in layman's very basic terms?

So great! (@2, if you're on Safari the mobile version is the only way to go, though with the mobile one misses the comedy of the full site's hallmark, the Deja Vu nipple dots.)

The Grand Jury sounds like a great way to disappear people.

Well done, Brendan. A good piece that focuses on the facts and the story, with just enough interpretation to pull it all together.

As opposed to what we see on some blogs -- opinion and interpretation first, supplemented by a few cherry-picked facts to support the writer's point of view.

@3 The old standard was all grand jury documents were sealed as a matter of course. The new standard is that only motions to quash subpoenas or motions to hold witnesses in contempt and transcripts containing grand jury secrets should be sealed as a matter of course. In particular actual orders to hold witnesses in contempt and the documents ordering them to be jailed and subsequent appeals should all be public.

If you are compelled to testify before a grand jury the fact that you are doing so is secret. The only person who can reveal the fact that you testified is you. However, if you are jailed for refusing to testify then the fact you were called is no longer really a secret. Your being jailed is a matter of public record so the reason for your being jailed should be known.

Bravo! Excellent news.

@ 3. In effect, we challenged the US Attorney’s Office in court and argued that it shouldn't be allowed to just reflexively seal everything about a grand jury (including orders to hold witnesses in contempt, orders to put them behind bars, witnesses' requests to be released, the file docket, the discussion about what should and shouldn't be sealed, and so on) and hide it from the public, effectively wiping the events from the record.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with us. (Mostly—we asked for a few things we didn't get.) If the USAO wants to appeal, the next stop is the US Supreme Court, but that seems unlikely.

It's a win (a small win, but a win) for government transparency. Hopefully, this will not only apply to this GJ case but can be of use to attorneys, journalists, and others grappling with federal grand juries in the future.

@4: I find the mobile version the only way to go no matter what =P

@7: Thanks! That actually was very understandable.

@12: except you're the one that is mistaken. It was the old courthouse that was vandalized. Here's a quote from a May 2, 2012 article from the Seatimes (since you don't seem to believe the Stranger): protestors "broke windows at a federal building, the William Kenzo Nakamura U.S. Courthouse."

p.s. it's Brendan. Might want to get that correct as well.

@12

Ah yes, credibility. Turns out that's an awfully complicated idea, in this case.

Great piece indeed. Well done, sir.

@9, it's an important case, and there should be as much media light on this as possible.

@ 12: Thanks for the kind words. To clarify, I took that photo when we showed up on Feb 5 for oral arguments in front of the Ninth Circuit judges—it was the same building where I watched demonstrators smashing glass and throwing paint back in 2012.

You may be thinking of the newer US District Court—also a federal courthouse—on Stewart Street. It's easy to get them confused if you're not a legal professional (or in trouble).

To know how long this has been going on, if you've got Netflix go and find "The Rockford Files", season 3 (1976), episode 7, "So Help Me God". It's fascinating, in that it's actually based on true happenings with a grand jury, and is a rare "statement" episode in an otherwise mainstream fluff show.

Thanks! Great article!

Hey Brendan,
Did you get any documentation on the solitary confinement?

Excellent. Congratulations and thanks to The Stranger and Neil.

FYI, I've been keeping track every time I see Judge Richard Jones in the news. I have yet to see him reported making a good decision; he sucks. Public interest lawyers: Avoid Judge Jones in Tacoma division. He has apparently taken on Judge Jack Tanner's role.

@ 20: I'm not sure what you mean—that they were in solitary? That was confirmed by the prisoners (I interviewed them in person at the prison and a couple of times after they got out) and their attorneys. When I asked the detention center why the prisoners were in solitary, I was repeatedly told: "This is not considered public information."

The thing is, their attorneys have had many previous clients at the same detention center—those attorneys said repeatedly that when their other clients have gone into solitary, they get answers about why. (They were a danger to themselves or others, they were unstable, they were picking fights, they were breaking rules, etc.)

In this case, they got no explanation at all after repeated requests. And yet, when they got an opportunity to ask Dominic Ayotte, regional counsel for the Bureau of Prisons, whether the BOP could put someone in solitary at the request of the US Attorney's Office to coerce a recalcitrant witness, he thought for several seconds and then said no.

The point is, there isn't a lot of oversight here, it seems like decisions with major effects on people's lives are being made capriciously (and if they aren't, the answers about why they're being made are deflective or confusing). Every extra bit of sunshine on the process counts.