DOJ Omits Crucial Element in Southern Poverty Law Center Charges
-
The Justice Department relied on a lesser-known bank deception statute to indict the Southern Poverty Law Center while omitting an element needed to prove the crime: intent to influence a financial institution.
The infirmities suggest federal prosecutors in the Middle District of Alabama who brought the case may have improperly instructed grand jurors, which could lead a judge to dismiss the case or demand transcripts of the typically-secretive proceedings in which DOJ obtained the indictment, said several defense lawyers and former white-collar prosecutors.
“To have a complete absence of the required intent—in four counts—is a major, major omission that I think will be troubling to the court and really open the door to whether in fact the grand jury was instructed properly,” said Armstrong, the founding partner of defense firm Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC.
-
The Justice Department relied on a lesser-known bank deception statute to indict the Southern Poverty Law Center while omitting an element needed to prove the crime: intent to influence a financial institution.
The infirmities suggest federal prosecutors in the Middle District of Alabama who brought the case may have improperly instructed grand jurors, which could lead a judge to dismiss the case or demand transcripts of the typically-secretive proceedings in which DOJ obtained the indictment, said several defense lawyers and former white-collar prosecutors.
“To have a complete absence of the required intent—in four counts—is a major, major omission that I think will be troubling to the court and really open the door to whether in fact the grand jury was instructed properly,” said Armstrong, the founding partner of defense firm Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC.
As expected, the case against the SPLC brought by the child rapist cheerleaders at the DOJ begins to fall apart.
-
The Justice Department relied on a lesser-known bank deception statute to indict the Southern Poverty Law Center while omitting an element needed to prove the crime: intent to influence a financial institution.
The infirmities suggest federal prosecutors in the Middle District of Alabama who brought the case may have improperly instructed grand jurors, which could lead a judge to dismiss the case or demand transcripts of the typically-secretive proceedings in which DOJ obtained the indictment, said several defense lawyers and former white-collar prosecutors.
“To have a complete absence of the required intent—in four counts—is a major, major omission that I think will be troubling to the court and really open the door to whether in fact the grand jury was instructed properly,” said Armstrong, the founding partner of defense firm Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Εγγραφή Σύνδεση