of the defendants’ immunized statements in securing the indictment. Mem.Op. 75-85 (JA__).3.The district court’s finding that any
errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Mem.Op. 88-89 (JA__).
After the district court dismissed the indictment without prejudice, it deniedSlatten’s and Ball’s motions to dismiss with prejudice based on prosecutorialmisconduct. That opinion was entered on January 19, 2010 (JA__), and isreported at 679 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2010).The
hearing was closed to the public and the press. At theconclusion of the hearing, the district court ordered that the
materialsremain under seal pending the government’s decision to seek appeal, but alsoordered that the materials be unsealed on February 2, 2010, the day after thegovernment’s deadline for noticing an appeal. That opinion (JA__) in D.C. No.1:10-mc-00005, is reported at 677 F.Supp.2d 296 (D.D.C. 2010);
(also orderingrelease of redacted pre- and post-hearing memoranda). On January 29, 2010, thecourt denied the joint motion by the government and defendants to maintain the
materials under seal (JA__). The government’s appeal of that ruling in
Washington Post, et al., v. United States
is this Court’s Case No. 10-3007.Counsel is aware of no other related cases.
Case: 10-3006 Document: 1250238 Filed: 06/16/2010 Page: 3