[free-sklyarov] Dima's bail hearing

[Greg Broiles]

The judge was confused about the sealed complaint, and was corrected - I 
can't remember if he corrected himself or the prosecutor did. The complaint 
was originally sealed so that Dmitri wouldn't learn that he was about to be 
arrested - the complaint was unsealed at his initial appearance in Las Vegas.

There isn't a new complaint, although it wouldn't be unusual for him to be 
indicted by a federal grand jury prior to his next appearance, which will 
result in an indictment replacing the complaint as the charging document; 
that would also make his next appearance a little bit more like a formality 
and a little bit less like a contested hearing, because it will mean that a 
grand jury has already found that there's probable cause to hold him for trial.

(but, if you're not interested in the guts of criminal procedure, that's a 
detail that you don't need to get especially worked up about - it's neither 
especially good nor especially bad.)

At 03:15 PM 8/6/2001 -0700, Charles Eakins wrote:
>Yes why is the complaint sealed?  Is this a new complaint?  We already saw
>the old one.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: free-sklyarov-admin at zork.net
>[mailto:free-sklyarov-admin at zork.net]On Behalf Of Austin Hook
>Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 3:14 PM
>To: alfee cube
>Cc: free-sklyarov at zork.net
>Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Dima's bail hearing
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, alfee cube wrote:
>....
> > > complaint is sealed
>
>What does that mean?
>

--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles at well.com
"We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids