AG Bondi and President Trump Violate Precepts of Criminal Justice that DOJ Tax Knows and Gets Right (6/8/25)

 I write today on a basic premise of the criminal justice system that Trump and his minions have misrepresented in a malevolent way. I contrast those misrepresentations with the way DOJ Tax Division (and other DOJ components) act more responsibly.

Attorney General Pam Bond is quoted in several news articles, including ABC News quoted here, except that I bold-face for emphasis):

"The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring," Bondi said. "They found this was his full time job, not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over 100 trips, the grand jury found, smuggling people throughout our country."

Abrego Garcia's indictment was the pretext for obtaining his return from El Salvador that the courts have ordered for some time now.

As all readers of this blog know (I hope), an indictment is not a finding of guilt nor is it a finding of any fact such as proclaimed publicly by AG Bondi. Grand juries only determine probable cause to indict–a significantly lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for finding guilt of a crime)--and indictments do not require unanimity as required in criminal trials.

When done right, as DOJ Tax routinely does, the announcement of any indictment always includes:

An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

See, e.g., here.

Further, as to the role of grand juries in the system, AG Bondi should acquaint herself with the relevant provisions of the DOJ's Justice Manual that all DOJ attorneys, including the AG, must know and follow (except in her case she may not know or follow):

Title 9: Criminal, 9-11.000 - Grand Jury, here

AG Bondi might also acquaint herself with AG Robert Jackson's (later Supreme Court Justice) famous statement on "The Federal Prosecutor," posted on DOJ's website here.

After Guilty Verdict, District Court Denies Motions for Dismissal and New Trial in Tax Crimes Case (11/13 /15; 11/15/15)

I previously reported on the denial of the Tweel type claim that the IRS civil agent been conducting a criminal investigation.  See Court Holds that Civil Agent Did Not Continue Investigation Too Long and Even If Deceptive Did Not Prejudice Defendant (5/2/15), here, discussing United States v. Hee, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54971 (D. HI Apr. 27, 2015).  Hee sought in that pre-trial motion to have the indictment dismissed or, alternatively, to suppress certain evidence.  Usually, this type of claim, if valid, would suppress statements that defendant made to the civil agent who conducted a criminal investigation in the guise of a civil investigation.  As reported in the prior blog, the Court denied the motion (as well as other motions).

The case went to trial.  The jury convicted Hee of one count of tax obstruction, § 7212(a), here, and 6 counts of tax perjury, § 7206(1), here.  Hee then filed post-trial motions on several issues.  The Court rejected the post-trial motions.  United States v. Hee, 2015 U.S. Dist. LXIS 145406 (D. HI 2015), here. The Court also rejected a pre-conviction motion that had been deferred.  I only discuss the ones I found most interesting.

1.  Renewed Tweel Claim.

Hee renewed his Tweel Claim.  The Court discusses the renewed claim, including a focus on the relevant facts and law, and denies the motion for the same reasons noted in the earlier blog.  I will not discuss this denial of the renewed claim, but it is interesting reading even though substantially redundant to the prior discussion.

2. Grand Jury Abuse.

Hee argued that the charges "the charges should be dismissed because the Government allegedly provided the grand jury with erroneous instructions regarding three issues."  Because of the focus of my comments, it is not important to get into merits of the alleged error in the instructions offered the grand jury.  I will start with this recitation of this motion's history (docket citations omitted for easier readability):

Hee's trial commenced on June 23, 2015. On July 6, 2015, as the trial was nearing conclusion, Hee submitted his motion concerning grand jury issues. The court discussed with the attorneys the scheduling of briefing and a hearing on the motion. Attorneys for the Government and for Hee noted that the motion could be heard following trial, and Hee's attorney expressly stated that the trial did not need to be interrupted for a decision on the motion. Briefing and a hearing were therefore scheduled for dates following the completion of the trial. With the motion awaiting further briefing, the petit jury returned a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts.

I emphasize in bold the key fact.