These questions about the grand jury or the reading of the indictment summary are part of deliberations and they cant get into that because its prohibited. I would just cite ocga151267 says it requires the grand jury to keep the deliberations of the grand jury secret unless called upon to give evidence thereof in the court of law in the state. And it talks about the information which i think goes towards the case is what they were talking about, whether or not the prosecutor was about a particular decision. None of those things here exist and ill get to their solution as to how they want to handle that with the court. But i will also state that federal rule 606 as well as 24 of here in georgia mirrors that, which basically says the same thing that, validity is an indictment, a jury shall not testify on affidavits otherwise nor shall a jurys statement be received as evidence in any such manner. And that gets into, what is the purpose of this voyeur dire that they want to do of these grand jurors . How can it be used according to the law, it cant be used as evidence at trial. They cant testify, they cant give affidavits, so how are they going to even use this information that they receiveed . I think the collin case withe the entire indictment was dismisdemeanor when people were inside the deliberations. So i guess the question would be, how on earth is a defendant ever supposed to find out whether that happened without talking to the grand jurors . Youre officers of the court, you can state no one besides the grand jurors. Thats what theyre asking for us to do for this. They can say that theyre officers of the court, this is what the grand jury said to them. Only the grand jury was present during deliberation. It says the defense presumed the tell of a grand jury witness to support his statement. I havent found anything in georgia law that says no ones allowed to talk to their grand jurors. Well, i dont and i think its not that theyre not allowed to talk to them, judge, but theyre trying im basing it on what their motion states. Sure. And i think weve arrived at the same place there where its going to again, seeing that this might all be futile, but im with you that deliberations are a hard stop. What its coming down to is what are they allowed to be asked . Right. Ill move on. Talking about 20433 about the relevance. Specifically ocga151273 particularly states, communications among grand jurors are excluded as evidence on grounds of Public Policy. I just think the things that they are asking for gets into how are the jurors communicating with one another . I think it all goes toward how they deliberated. Mr. Grubman got up here and talked, how quickly could they have come to this decision . , you know, its a 98page indictment. That goes toward the deliberation, asking questions about that is part of the deliberation process, which is prohibited. So i think if were going to get to the point which the state does not concede we should, we have to figure out, then how is it going to be used because the case law is clear, testimony of grand jury witnesses, they cannot use this to impeach their findings. And thats what theyre asking to do. Theyre trying to ask these questions in order to impeach the true bill that the grand jurors set down. Thats what theyre essentially asking to do and its not allowed based on the case law. And by statute. And ill just cite the one case that they i dont know if they mentioned but United States v. Dan eagle. It says an indictment termed by a legally constituted grand jury is presumed to be valid on its face. Similarly, theres a strong presumption of regularity that attaches to all grand jury proceedings. A defendant seeking to challenge the presumption has a difficult burden. Because its hard to override and that is 809 federal 1360. So i think we have to get into is it relevant, is it admissible, the questions that they want to ask these jurors, and based on the case law, it is not, because what theyre asking is, we want to you change your mind, we want you to answer a question in a way that is going to impeach your finding. None of the questions that theyre all of those things are reaching towards that. Was there someone else in there . Did the prosecutor steer you a certain way . All of that is to impeach the finding of a true bill of the indictment. And theres nothing here that says that it should be. I want to touch upon the Public Policy and the safety that the court talked about. And weve heard it, these grand jurors have already experienced threats. Weve had to contact theyve contacted our office because of safety concerns. Weve had to contact Law Enforcement agencies all over Fulton County to make sure that these grand jurors are safe. I think the court also needs to make in allowing this is the safety of these grand jurors and their concerns that have already been voiced. Ill just say the Supreme Court observed the grand jury as a Public Institution serving the community might suffer both testifying today that the secrecy of their testimony would be listed tomorrow. The indefensible secrecy of grand jury proceedings must not be broken unless there is a compelling necessity. There hasnt been a compelling necessity raised by this defense to then pierce the veil of secrecy of the grand jury. Wheres that coming from . Heckler. Spell that for me. You have that case, judge. In my stack. We just pause one moment. I just want to point out again, judge, talk about deliberations and the fact it should be when discussing the charges in both the indictments. All of the questions that were talked about, thats where its going. If we are going to do this, which we dont believe they should, it would have to be crafted very carefully to make sure we are in line with the statute and the case law. All right. Im sorry. One more thing, judge. We talked about the grand jurors and the safety. All these cases are here for the court. I just want to we have to make sure we are keeping that paramount. They are asking to be able to call these jurors. These jurors have already said we are concerned. We have had to handing you a copy of the response that i gave for the court. But because of Public Policy and safety, judge, that is another reason we should not allow this. Finally, the lack of authority. What they stated to the court was vacated. Its improper to bring that to the court. Its not even law. Its not even something the court should be considering or talking about. There is no authority that allows what they are asking the court to allow them to do. The indictment, i said that to the court, the grand jury acted quickly as the court said we dont get into deliberation with the jury. They can take as long as they like. As short as they like. I understand it may raise the eyebrows, but a true indictment was returned by a grand jury. They could have taken five minutes, five hours, or five days. There is no case law that puts a restriction how long it should take them. Thats United States versus aeugle at 808, as i said before, judge. There is a lack of authority for what they are asking to do. And in the brief will you find in 2010 lisa did the same exact thing. They say they come to the court and asking for permission. Thats because in 2010 the judge admonished the same thing. Knocking on grand jurors doors asking questions. She had to issue a protected order to stop that behavior. We are trying to get a copy that have order, before this morning. But we will do that once we get the Court Consideration after those findings in that particular case. Your honor i want to respond to the person attacks. Speaking of whats inappropriate. Let me pause right here. I was not, judge. Lets let her finish. I thought she was. I apologize. Miss young i would say you put out ways maybe we could do this. The state is not in agreement with that. The state believes it should be something thats done with your honor. Present. They can get whatever information is needed from that one person because they are the floor person. If its done, the state doesnt believe it should be, if the floor does ask for the state to be present and there are well craft the out questions given to the court and state prior to any of that happening. Wed ask that it does not happen because it is not authorized by law. Your honor, i take very extreme exception from ms. Young coming up here and trying to impinge the reputation of my colleague. Let me just im not going to consider t its not part your honor, my colleague was this is broadcast live. You can let me finish. Its not going to be part of the consideration right now. If you want to handle that outside of the courtroom, thats your business. For now, the to stay focused we should focus on the law. Respectfully it was said on the record and i think i should have the opportunity to respond. That was completely inappropriate. There have been many times, many times that the tpulton County District attorneys office, including some of the members that are signature in the courtroom today, have been called out by courts, by name, with inappropriate things they do in the grand jury and trial. No, can i not take ms. Youngs word for it that it was done properly. Ms. Youngs trying to send my client to prison. And we have the right to know if it was done properly. And she keeps saying there is no case hraufplt as your honor sai. As your honor said, there is case law. Instead of creating these power points, read our briefs. The collin case says we can talk to grand jurors. So the fact that she got up here and lied, lied to the court all right. We are not going down that road. She lied to the court i said its over. Let me just summarize. With motion number one, with the motion to speak to the grand jurors, i would ask defense counsel to supplement their motion. We can do this. I dont think it needs to be since this is something that would be crafted and considered, we can just do this off the docket. We can do this through email. A proposal of the questions, topics that would be gone into. And if we need to follow this up with another hearing to actually hone those, well do that. I think for each question or subject matter, you go into, im going to want to see a citation for how this is an actual relevant line of inquiry. All right. And then well get into logistics from there. I think there is a way to accommodate the case law cited by the state about the general secrecy, but still align the defense their ability to make sure that the grand jury filled its duty in a manner recognized by law. For the motion to unseal the grand jury transcripts, i think we mentioned ill take it under advisement and been provided the case law. For the first two motions, ms. Young, if you could provide a copy of that power pint to the defense and me power point to the defense and me as well. Counsel, would you desire supplemental briefing on that to respond what we just got . If you read did you want to respond . No, your honor. Echo what i said before. I would ask respectfully if the court on a case by case basis, perhaps the government is hands on drafting Something Like they have today, they did last week in the form of power point, it be in the form of a motion. We have an opportunity to read and be prepared so we dont waste the courts time. All right. Finally three was mooted. I think takes us to just another kind of check in where we are. A few things on my end before i know we can Start Talking about discovery issues and wrap up. Obviously i think it might have hit the docket by now. Sometimes there is a delay. We filed an order on the severance issue. I realize they never actually asked the state at the last motions hearing about the redacted indictment issue that was argued and was followed up after mr. Chesebro. You recall to sever accounts from the other defendants . The august 30 motion for severance of codefendants and list several of the accounts. Essentially it was clarified asking for redacted indictment at trial. Never got the states position on that one. Your honor, this was addressed originally. Ill step in and pinchhit for a second. As i recall the nature of that motion, one part of it was to sever individual defendants from each other and from the larger case. The subsidiary question was whether specific counts would be severed from the indictment, i believe i believe thats how it was phrased. Then when we discussed t. Which is where these motion hearings can be useful. It falls into more just a like a quoteunquote, dummy indictment of the actual trial of the case. Is that fair . Yes, your honor. Im sorry if i didnt word it correctly. I thought you granted it, white out or redacted. Thats what im asking for. Separate motion. Maybe this is something more we address as a Pretrial Motion. Its not as i take it a motion to at thissor the evidence or tailor the evidence or the other accounts arent relevant. What is the document the jury should get . I understand f i misunderstood the last, i apologize. I wasnt trying to add confusion to a economy situation already. The state, just for the record, dont see any basis to sever out any individual counts as to any defendant. But that i think is not what your honor was addressing. I suggest this is an issue we can talk about and get to later. We are still i realize thewe are not talking about a lot of days, but we are certainly not yet talking about what will go out to the jury. Especially since you have been told you are going to be getted motions. Getting motions. I just wanted to raise it i hadnt an order on this one and hadnt heard the states position. Sort of granted. Well get there. Well get there. Its still a lingering issue. Sort of granted. A well work on it. I would rather not, its very difficult for us. Thank you, your honor. All right. Other housekeeping i think i wanted to flag this as well. Because we are on this kphres compressed timeline. We get into on the mechanics of the juries selection later this month. Those are conversation we are starting to have with the Court Administration and sheriffs office. I did want to flag that the state filed a motion to use a jury questionnaire. Thats appropriate here. We are good. I dont think you need to. Well do t well probably have a deadline to submit the questions. Several weeks beforehand. Maybe start crafting those now. I spoke with mr. Wooten last time and we didnt necessarily agree but talked about the possibility of getting together and trying to craft questions that we all might agree on. And maybe having two separate sections. There are some the state wants, we dont. Vice versa. We could submit that in a joint filing. That sound wonderful to me. I want to flag that as i highlight more in the severance order, we are going to make an attempt to because i think my initial review of the speedy trial case law is that its uncertain when the trial commences. So we are going to be making the attempt to have this jury sworn by the deadline of november 5. Maybe that means a weekend or two is involved. Regardless i want to warn you when it come to the questions you submit on there, we are probably going to have to adopt the federal prabgcies of practice of a clock and timeline. You have so much time per panel. However you want to use it. And you can ask 100 questions, but may not be able to follow up on all 100 of them. I just want to lay that expectation out there. There is a trial going on right now. Actually the jury is deliberating now in federal court. Several federal judges. And a case in new york have done a modified trial schedule. If you can hear me out. Something the court might consider for a lengthy trial like this. I think that basically i think they go from like 8 30 to 3 or something. 8 30 to 2 30. Maybe two 15minute breaks. What the judge in that case told us through years of research, he said if you look at the transcript pages, you actually wind up basically getting the same amount of words in at trial. Particularly for a lengthy case the state case four months. Not including jury selection. Might make things more comfortable. Maybe if the court would entertain an alternativealternate schedule instead of 95. That might neighboring make something everyone more comfortable. Particularly the jurors who have to be here for i think the court said maybe eight months. Between four and eight months. When you say modified . Shorter day . Shorter day. Starts earlier, ends earl hier. Fewer breaks in the middle. It tends to get things done quicker. When it was proposed to me in another case, and actually another lawyer i know just finished a twomonth trial in federal court. And they went on that, i think they went on that schedule. And the jurors loved it. Court loved it. It just made things easier. Something to consider, if you would. Well see. Initially the reaction was going to be four full days a week. We follow the a. P. S. Precedent of taking the likely friday to handle other business and let the jurors recover. And in terms of strict, we shall have a break at this point in the morning and that point. So far i found that jurors personal needs dont run on a clock like that. We have to take the breaks where they come. Well see. But the idea will be four full days a week when we get into the evidence. Mainly i want to flag at this point the questioning might be different than what we have seen here in the courthouse before by necessity. We are aware. I think the case law is clear your honor when the trial starts. We are aware of that issue. We wont do anything to unnecessarily delay it. I think its clearly going to be a challenge. I dont think there is anyone in tpulton Fulton County that hasnt heard of this case and has a strong opinion one way or the other on the former president and People Associated with t we recognize the challenges and will do Everything Possible to move as quickly as possible. Hope the state will join us in that. If you want to add anything, feel free, otherwise im going through some housekeeping issues. We have every confidence the court is capable and qualified to get the trial schedule and well adhere to whatever you do. Im open to input any time. The last thing i would say, seeing the new motion that is have come in the door, you might be pleased to hear i will be hoping for some prehearing briefing on this lack of immunity issues as well. I dont think not as of yet. If i might i do have that brady concern. Thats what im thats all i have. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. Been in this case probably for a month. And on august 30 shortly after i got into this case i sent a very detailed brady request to the government. Those brady obligations, your honor knows, are independent of their discovery obligations as relates to this hard drive. They have a due process obligation to turn over to me favorable information. I didnt send them some blanket request saying give me everything under the sun. It was a very, very pointed request on august 30 that addressed two Critical Issues for ms. Powell. That is, number one, she wasnt behind this incident which forms the basis of her inclusion in this indictment. Number two, that whatever happened in coffee county, there is ample evidence out there it was authorized. I have asked for that very specific evidence. In response to my letter on august 30, i heard nothing from the state. So this week i sent an even more tailored request, a copy of which i can provide asking for specific information because i spent the past month or so trying to figure out what happened and have gathered ample evidence showing those two things. That ms. Powell was not behind all of this. And that it was authorized. I filed a motion last night that set down all the evidence i was able to find on my own. Which i hope the state has. But the most important thing that i found, your honor, is a report by cnn, which i have been able to confirm, there is a letter, a letter of invitation from Coffey County on january 1, of 2021 that was sent. And it was sent not to ms. Powell. It was sent to another lawyer inviting folks to come down to Coffey County and do whatever it is they do. What does that establish, your honor . Two things, one. What i have been saying since last week in myself reince motion and motion last night, ill keep banging the drum on, this was not ms. Powell. Number one. Number two, that this was authorized. It was authorized. I have asked for that. I have not asked for eight terabytes of discovery. There is a handful of documents. We have eight lawyers on this side. Im sure they know how to attach a document to that email. In response to that email, like the letter i sent august 30, i heard squat from the state. So they sit here and say, your honor, that they are open and they are going to turn stuff over. I have been as clear as day about specifically what im entitled to. Under the constitution of due process, ray versus merrill, independent of any discovery obligations they have. That is exculpatory information that establishes that ms. Powell should not be in this case. They have it, your honor. I have a reason to believe they have t and they dont even respond have it. And they dont even respond. I have a motion ill file. Im going to ask for this relief. If this were in federal court, rule 5, your honor would issue an order upon arraignment ordering them to turn that material over because they have to. They dont have a choice. And they havent done it here. Im concerned. I practice mostly in federal court with federal prosecutors who know that. I have concern that mr. Wade and the other folks on this side dont appreciate their brady obligation. Im asking the court to order them to produce brady material immediately because they are required to. Thats my point, your honor. Im concerned. I raise it with your honor. All right. We have also not received any brady information. There is a lot. We know there is a lot. Mr. Wade and his team have not sent us one page. Thats the record. Mr. Rafr at this rafferty. I think in terms of the timing of the motion, the way we try to keep things on track as best we can, that we have the final drop dead date. When they are supposed to have gotten here, everything was supposed to be turned over. At that point if you still dont have it thats when that motion becomes relevant. Im hoping there is an exchange and dialogue and things can be worked out among attorneys. Thats the idea. I note your concerns and see what the state has to say and leave it at that. My point is, your honor, there is discovery which is covered in federal court by rule 15 by state court procedures. I understand discovery. Independent of those discovery obligations are the constitutional obligations under the due process law to turn over exculpatory information and turn it over immediately. There is no question. I think we are just talking about timing. I understand that. And then they havent even responded acknowledging they have those oblg tkpwaeugss. They havent turned over the information. I specifically told them these are the pieces of paper i want. I havent gotten a response to the email saying ok, we understand. I havent gotten a single piece of paper. I need the stuff that proves that she should not be in this case. Respectfully, judge, it appears as though mr. Rafferty wants us not only to provide the information to him, that information has been provided to him this morning on the terabyte drive that hes been handed. A full schedule, ahead of time, the court sent a discovery, or a Pretrial Motion track for which the state has held true to. We have not violated any of the deadlines. What we are doing is trying the case is what we are doing. Thats the intent. They are putting in evidence and saying these things trying to essentially try the case before its time to do that. Discovery has been given to the other side. Ahead of time. Ahead of the schedule that the court has set. All mr. Rafferty has to do is plug it in and open and look for the documents he is looking for. Will i educate mr. Wade for a second. As a former federal prosecutor and state prosecutor, you do not satisfy your brady obligation by turning over eight terabytes worth of material and say go find it. That does not satisfy your obligations under brady, case law, and the constitution. You are obligated to turn over specific information that has been requested. You cant just give me eight terabytes and say have at it and go find it. If you have it and i told you what im looking for you have to turn it over to me. We are spinning our wheels at this point. Mr. Rafferty, obviously on that specific point that they have to then point to this and respond to discreet evidence request, make that a part of your motion. I would like to see the case law on it. We can take that up at the appropriate time. In the meantime, i think in order to there is a lot that needs to be done between now and october 23. I think the best use of our time is being in court here talking to each other. I think that acknowledging an email, replying back to it sometimes can prevent us from being here as often as we may have to. To that end i would encourage everyone to keep the lines of communication open. Well take the motions up at the appropriate time. Anything else that we need to hear today . If i may. Copy of the case law. Ok. Something you already provided to the defense . Ok. When it comes to scheduling, i wanted to address this grand jury issue early on in the case since there have to be followup investigative work. I dont think we need to make this a weekly recurring thing for now. We could wait until the discovery deadline passes and the motion deadline passes and start scheduling the rest of these hearings. Thats the plan. On scheduling. Is it possible we have to have a hearing next week, could we have it monday, tuesday, or wednesday . Next week im presiding. Right now wednesday looks mostly clear. Thank you. That could be a date we could shoot for. If there is an emergency that has to be heard. Sorry. Changing topics. Are you done . Thats fine. With regard to the scheduling order. I think there is a september 28 deadline. Once we get to discovery we have 10 days to respond. We have 10 days starting i dont know what the turnover will be until i see what they have. I know we are on a pressed dime schedule. If we dont turn it over on the same day i hadnt heard that one before. I think generally the intent of the scheduling order is that there is a Mutual Exchange by that date. And that if there is supplemental discovery, because its newly discovered or newly becomes relevant, in good faith, then it gets turned over within five days is our general guideline there. I think based on argueles we have had so far, have a pretty good idea what the states case is against your client. I would think that you could turn over the bulk of your discovery by the deadline. If there are followup things, and the state isnt satisfied with the timeline when its turned over, theyll file a motion and well hear it. I dont want to pay experts if i dont need them based on the discovery and witnesses experts to be classified differently. I think we also have a trial management order where we say experts are supposed to be identified and some reports a grievance, 14 days, might be sefrpblt thats a different category. Traditionally the statute says once the government gives you discovery you have 10 days to do it or x number of days. I want to be able to go through how many terabytes there are. So im not sending the same things they sent me. There are only three of us. I sort of know what i need. If they are going to call 150 witnesses i need to figure out the rebuttal. There are 240 of them, maybe kroez cross exam. At the end. Im trying to figure that out. Understood. You have already alluded to it. If after this discovery deadline has passed, you have a smaller batch you think now needs to get turned over, do t it should be still do it. It should still be well in advance i didnt want you to think. If the state has a problem well take it up and see what the arguments look like. With regard to the more substantive motion. The justification and first amendment. I think you said they would probably im going to have witnesses for that. If we could set that out. So i can fly people in. The Case Management hearing well want to go into how many witnesses, how long you think this hearing will take, and then well start setting dates. The last thing is, depending on the ruling, there may be other requests. That may be an issue because some these are understood. Well take those up as they come. Anything else . Thank you all. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the nationalaptioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap. Org] bringing you as much of the Pretrial Hearing in the georgia interference cases we can live here on cspan. Well show it in its entirety later in our Program Schedule with lawyers representing accused coconspirators, Sidney Powell and kenneth chesebro. Well have it online to watch any time at cspan. Org. The house will gavel back in at noon eastern to debate and vote on a measure that prohibits the e. P. A. From issuing waivers that would ban new sales of gasolinepowered vehicles. Also republican hraordz are considering how to bring spending bills to the floor after they pulled the defense departments funding measure yesterday because of a lack of support from conservatives. You can find live coverage of the house here on cspan. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government. We are funded by these Television Companies and more. Including wow. The world has changed. Today the fast reliable Internet Connection is something no one can live without. So wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice. Now more than ever it starts with great internet. Wow, supports cspan as a public svice. Along with these other television providers. Giving you a front row seat to democracy. Tonight a look at the use of Artificial Intelligence by federal agencies. With officials from the white house, pentagon, and Homeland Security department. They testified before the house oversight