[neeksHN]

> At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens.

> This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division.

Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to release the evidence used to attribute the defendants? Or will it remain "pending arraignment" indefinitely?

I'd love to see an in-depth technical analysis of how they were able to substantiate these allegations

[dragonwriter]

> Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to release the evidence used to attribute the defendants

If you meant “ever”, then yes, but that would require the indicted individuals actually be arrested and brought before the court, which, while not impossible, is improbable without a change of government in both the US and Russia.

If it didn't go to trial, and it's classified (which it almost certainly is) or otherwise not subject to FOIA (which as sensitive, even if it not classified, information related to an open criminal case, which it will be until the case is resolved, it will continue to be at a minimum, it would seem exempt from) there won't be any likely compulsory process. Maybe Congress could pry it out of DoJ and make it public, by at least the current leadership send willing to stand up to intense pressure including public impeachment threats from the same party in Congress on at least some sensitive investigation information, so it's not clear that would work, either.

[onetimemanytime]

My guess is that Russia will fund one charged guy to hire a a top US lawyer and fight the charges.

A Russian company--allegedly doing Russia's dirty work--hired top US lawyers and they are giving DOJ a heartburn...they must share evidence (can tell how it was obtained) and get ready to go to trial. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/09/concord-manag...

[hollerith]

I think the US intelligence community is competent and influential enough to get the DOJ to drop the charges before Russia gained significant knowledge that way.

[crb002]

My thoughts exactly. GRU is going to use discovery to get at how the US spied on GRU.

[dsr_]

If it never goes to trial? The only hope is filing a FOIA request, which will probably be denied for 20-50 years.

[okmokmz]

>The only hope is filing a FOIA request, which will probably be denied for 20-50 years.

Either that, or they'll send you a bunch of documents that look something like this

https://static.businessinsider.com/image/4cc59ba2cadcbbbf5f0...

[arwineap]

You might be interested in some of the FBI's previous work

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/operation-ghost-stories-ins...

[bunderbunder]

Even if it goes to trial, the DOJ is likely to be allowed to file that evidence under seal.

[mkempe]

Are the accused allowed to examine the evidence used to charge them?

[dragonwriter]

> Are the accused allowed to examine the evidence use to charge them?

If they actually are arrested or surrender themselves to face the charges, yes, mostly. That is, they are entitled to not only what the prosecution will use at trial, but to have any exculpatory evidence in the hands of the government proactively turned over, and to have compulsory means of securing any relevant evidence, physical or testimonial, from any person subject to the court.

But that's likely moot in this case; these defendants seem unlikely to be brought before the court, voluntarily or involuntarily.

[mkempe]

Thanks. I'm asking because apparently the other Russian group previously charged by Mueller et al has hired lawyers who seem to be easily winning the case in court, without any Russian national having to appear. Apparently for lack of evidence and lack of legal substance.