Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

In CIA Leaks Case US Gets Schulte Superseding Indictment After Defense Opposes Setting Any Trial Date

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Thread Song
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 9 – In the conclusion of the month long trial of accused CIA leaker Joshua Schulte, on the morning of March 9 the jury returned guilty verdicts on Counts 8 and 10, with mistrial granted on all other counts. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Paul A. Crotty set March 26 for the next date.  Then it was moved to April 22 (then May 18). March 9 thread here. Song here.

 Now after the US Attorney's Office said it anticipates re-indicting Schulte with a grand jury in early June, his lawyers have asked for a week to reply since they cannot easily reach him in MCC lock-down. Inner City Press worked to cover a June 1, 10:30 am conference in the case, but nothing.

 Now on June 9 the US Attorney's Office has gotten and filed this: (S3) SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FILED as to Joshua Adam Schulte (1) count(s) 1sss, 2sss-3sss, 4sss, 5sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, 9sss. (jbo)." Full text on Patreon here.

 On June 8, Schulte's lawyer opposed setting a trial date at this point: "Re: United States v. Joshua Adam Schulte, S2 17 Cr. 548 (PAC) Dear Judge Crotty: We respectfully submit this letter in response to the government’s letter of May 29, 2020 (Dkt. 401), which asks the Court to set a trial date “for as soon as possible after normal court operations resume.” In light of the uncertainty as to when the courthouse will be open, when legal visits with Mr. Schulte will resume, how post-pandemic jury trials will be conducted, and when jury selection will be possible, setting a trial date at this stage would be premature. First, given new information that came to light at the first trial, motion practice is incomplete. For example, for the reasons previously stated in our motion for a mistrial (see Dkt. 328, at 1-4, 8-12; Dkt. 331, at 3-5; Dkt. 331-1), the defense has been unfairly denied access to the full “mirror” images of the CIA’s ESXi and FSO1 servers—images that were made fully available to the government’s expert but not to Mr. Schulte’s expert. Once the government files its proposed superseding indictment, Mr. Schulte intends to renew his request that the Court order the government to produce those mirror images as soon as possible. And because reviewing those servers will require that counsel, our experts, and Mr. Schulte spend substantial time in the SCIF—which is impossible given the current pandemic—the defense cannot commit to a firm trial date." Watch this site.

 On May 22, Judge Crotty committed his questions to writing, and suggested that Schulte's pornography trial go forward first: "ORDER as to Joshua Adam Schulte. As a result of the court conference held on Monday, May 18, 2020, the Court is requesting further information on the following: 1. When does the Government expect that a grand jury will be convened in the Southern District of New York? 2. What is the Government's best estimate as to when a grand jury will be able to hear the Schulte matter? 3. In light of the inherent delays posed by the Government's approach to supersede the indictment, the Court is directing both parties to provide their positions on whether the pornography trial should proceed in advance of the espionage trial. SO ORDERED: (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 5/22/2020)(bw)."

  AUSA Denton replied, They are being brought in on an emergency basis.

  Judge Crotty asked, And Mr Schulte is not an emergency?

  AUSA Denton said, No, he has already been charged.

 Schulte's lawyer Sabrina Shroff asked, What does it mean, brought in on emergency basis?

   AUSA Denton said, On Mr. Schulte, we plan to proceed as soon as normal grand jury operations have resumed.

  Judge Crotty said, That won't occur until later in Summer...  It's my information no jury trials until September at the earliest.

 Sabrina Shroff said, Mr Schulte I believe would say a grand jury is needed now, he wants the case to proceed.

  Judge Crotty reflected, As I remember, many of our jurors were from Westchester County. So, a transportation problem.

 AUSA Denton offered, The second trial could be shorter, we will streamline. 

  Judge Crotty proposed, Let's reconvene mid to late June. Anything else?

  AUSA Denton moved, Let's exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act.

  Judge Crotty asked, Any objection?

 Sabrina Shroff said, I think Mr Schulte does have an objection.

  Judge Crotty ruled, Motions are pending, so I am excluding time, in the interest of justice outweigh the interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

More on Patreon here. Song here.

 Back on the afternoon of February 28 the US in an emergency hearing dropped Count 2 against Schulte, and admitted that it can never be revived: jeopardy has attached. Inner City Press has obtained the transcript and tweeted and uploaded it here on Scribd, on Patreon here.

  On March 5, Judge Paul A. Crotty and both side's lawyers held a closed door proceeding in the judge's robing room. Afterward Assistant US Attorney Matthew Laroche said that the transcript should be sealed until after a verdict.

  Inner City Press immediately wrote to Judge Crotty and the docket, for the fifth time in this proceeding (here's III and IV): "Dear Judge Crotty:    This supplements the January 22, 23 and 26 and February 24, 2020 submissions on this topic on behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity. Your Honor on Janaury 31 ruled inter alia that "[t]he Government is directed to make transcripts and exhibits available to the public no later than the evening after the day of testimony." Docket No. 293, at 15.   This morning after a robing room discussion about Juror Number 5 (and perhaps other matters) from which the press was excluded, AUSA Laroche urged your Honor to seal the transcript of that discussion until AFTER there is a verdict. That is unacceptable, and inconsistent with your previous order.  The purpose of this letter is to formally request at the earliest time - 10 minutes after AUSA Laroche's statement, your ruling on which is unclear - that the transcript of the robing room proceeding be made available immediately, as well as all other exhibits which Inner City Press has continued available to the public on"

  Meanwhile, as now excused Juror 5 left the courthouse, Inner City Press caught the tail / end of her comments to two intrepid tabloids. She specializes in buttocks sculpting - and most explosively, indicted that she believed Schulte was naughty but not guilty. This would seem at a minimum to provide fuel for a defense appeal in the event of a conviction. But first - the transcript. Watch this site.

  On March 4, the jury deliberated for a full second day without reaching a verdict. Or perhaps the whole jury did not deliberate - as Inner City Press first tweeted (thread here), the foreperson passed out a note that Juror Number Four (whose name was said) was refusing to deliberate with others, was conducting their own inquiry into the evidence. Schulte's lawyer Zas urged Judge Crotty to let time elapse before acting. Could this type of independent inquiry be more favorable to Schulte than that US? Thread here; Inner City Press is staying on the case.

  On March 3, the jury deliberated and asked at least nine questions. Inner City Press live tweeted it, thread here. There were questions about locking and unlocking computers, and if Schulte was ever diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, a matter raised in cross-examination. Perhaps of concern for the defense was the lack of questions about alternate suspect Michael.

  At day's end in Judge Crotty's courtroom gallery it was only Inner City Press and one of the Assistant US Attorneys, who waited to say he and Schulte's lawyers would try to answer some of the questions the next day, March 4. Inner City Press will be there - watch this site.

  On March 2 were the closing arguments, which Inner City Press tweeted, thread here

Schulte's lawyer Sabrina Shroff: DEVLAN was wide open. Passwords were leaked. There were not audit logs. The witnesses told you DEVLAN was the Wild, Wild West.... They called DEVLAN a "dirty network." It had very easy passwords. Simply carrying the data out the door on a hard drive would not be difficult.

Shroff points at the AUSAs - "They don't know." They look down at their hands. Shroff: He tells you, the Alta backups were wide open.

Shroff: Michael was present at his desk when the government says the data was taken. The computer evidence they claim points to Mr. Schulte, it fails to support the government's case.... The thumb drive was removed 26 minutes *before* the reversion. And it was too small, and write-protected. Maybe the culprit is the one living at home on paid administrative leave.

Shroff: Let's look at Government Exhibit 1207-27. Mr Denton told you March 3 was the very day Mr Schulte felt the CIA had wronged him. But there's nothing in the evidence that Mr. Schulte viewed March 3, 2016 as particularly significant.

 Did he use a cell phone? Sure. But that's not what he's charged with. Your job as jurors is to put the government to these test. I told you at the beginning of the trial, Mr. Schulte was a difficult employee. That is all the government has shown in over the past four weeks....

Back when the trial set to begin February 3, a public hearing was held on January 27 about the US Attorney's requests to seal the courtroom for some witness and limited media attendance to a single pool reporter banned from reporting any physical characteristics of the CIA witnesses.

   On this issue, Inner City Press before the public hearing filed three one-page letters in opposition, the last one here. At the end U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Paul A. Crotty asked Assistant US Attorney Matthew Laroche if his Office objected to live video feed to the SDNY Press Room, not showing the witnesses' faces. AUSA Laroche said no objection - which should mean feeds for this all other proceedings, when requested. On February 4, Inner City Press live-tweeted the opening arguments, here. And here a song.

 On February 24, while an FBI agent testified about ham-handed interview of Schulte, Inner City Press live tweeted thread here, the US Attorney's Office as it is required made available some exhibits, which we'll make available without paywall here on Patreon. But it still did NOT provide the audio files it played the jury. This violated Judge Crotty's order.

 So on February 24 Inner City Press wrote another formal letter to Judge Crotty, here, cc-ing the US Attorney's Office and Schulte's lawyers, urging release of the audio and video exhibits.

 And lo and behold on February 25 some were released: a video Inner City Press published here, and here, and a series of audio exhibits, for example here and here. Now five more here.
And the February 26 exhibits, in near real time, here.

 More on Patreon here.

See Inner City Press filing into the docket on Big Cases Bot, here. Watch this site. The case is US v. Schulte, 17-cr-548 (Crotty).


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for