impeachment

DOJ v. House Committee on the Judiciary

Issues

In conducting an impeachment investigation and trial, does the House Committee on the Judiciary act in the same role as an ordinary court that oversees litigation between parties? 

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body qualifies as a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that an impeachment inquiry is not a judicial proceeding, and therefore, President Trump’s impeachment trial is not subject to the exception to grand-jury secrecy for judicial proceedings and can remain redacted. The House Committee on the Judiciary counters that the Committee plays the same role during its impeachment inquiry as an ordinary court that oversees litigation between parties, and therefore, the impeachment inquiry is a judicial proceeding. As such, the House Committee demands access to unredacted transcripts and all other documents that special counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury considered. The outcome of this case determines whether House Democrats can gain access to Mueller’s report on President Trump’s alleged interference with Mueller’s investigation as part of their ongoing impeachment inquiry and the extent of the House Committees’ access to information in future impeachment inquiries. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In May 2017, an investigation was conducted to determine whether members of President Trump’s election campaign had cooperated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. In re Comm. on Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v.  U.S. Dep’t of Justice (“In re Comm.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Kansas v. Ventris

Issues

Whether a defendant can be impeached at trial with a voluntary statement that he made to an undercover police informant in the absence of a waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Court below

 

Around January 2004, Donnie Ray Ventris was arrested and charged with the murder, burglary, and robbery of Ernest Hicks. At his trial, the prosecution offered the testimony of Ventris's cellmate, whom the prosecution had recruited to uncover incriminating information from Ventris. This testimony was obtained in violation of Ventris's Sixth Amendment right to counsel because his counsel had not been present at the time, nor had he waived his right to counsel beforehand. The trial court therefore did not allow the prosecution to use the testimony in its case-in-chief. It did, however, let the prosecution use the testimony for impeachment purposes. Eventually, Ventris was acquitted of felony murder but convicted of robbery and burglary. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kansas Supreme Court, however, reversed because it held that Ventris's statements to his cellmate should not have been admitted for any purpose, including impeachment. The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether voluntary statements obtained in the absence of a waiver of one's Sixth Amendment right to counsel can be used for impeachment purposes. The Court's decision will impact the procedural fairness and truth-finding function of criminal trials.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a criminal defendant's "voluntary statement obtained in the absence of a knowing and voluntary waiver of the [Sixth Amendment] right to counsel," Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 354 (1990), is admissible for impeachment purposes-a question the Court expressly left open in Harvey and which has resulted in a deep and enduring split of authority in the Circuits and state courts of last resort?

On January 7, 2004, Donnie Ray Ventris and his girlfriend, Rhonda Theel, went to Ernest Hicks's home, because Theel wanted to confront Hicks over rumors that he was abusing the children of his live-in girlfriend. See Kansas v. Ventris, 176 P.3d 920, 922-23 (Kan.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to impeachment