I was right that there’s something funky about the October 16, 2025 grand jury transcript in the Broadview 6 case. But I still can’t figure out how I was right.
In this post, I noted two things: the unredacted transcript from October 16 reflected a seeming four hour gap — from 10:04AM to 2:43PM — between the first part of the transcript and the second (where the purported ICE victim testified), but the transcript ended with a timestamp, showing 10:11AM, that hid the gap, a timestamp that did not match the timestamps elsewhere in that section. In this post, I noted that the transcript as it currently appears conflicts with US Attorney Andrew Boutros’ claim that someone from the Head Office called a halt to the grand jury session after they learned Sheri Mecklenburg was throwing out grand jurors who objected to charging people for being hit by an ICE SUV. The session ended, instead, when Mecklenburg claimed her batteries ran out (a technical problem not included in the redacted transcript originally provided to Judge Perry).
The reason this matters is because AUSA William Hogan offered two excuses for why he withheld transcripts showing misconduct when he first gave Judge April Perry the grand jury transcripts: 1) he provided Judge Perry with what just the parts of the transcript that she asked for (those pertaining to legal instruction), and 2) he didn’t correct her misimpression that the redactions omitted technical problems because there were, in fact, technical problems. The first claim is false: he didn’t provide her with everything she ordered him to turn over. The second is a mess because Hogan’s redaction didn’t treat technical problems consistently.
But the anomaly matters because one thing Judge Perry is presumably assessing is whether Hogan and Boutros lied to her about the redactions and withholdings. And it appears to remain the case that the transcript leaves out critical details about Boutros’ involvement.
The exonerees’ reply brief mentions the transcript anomalies (but doesn’t call them out) in a section questioning Andrew Boutros’ intervention upon learning jurors were being thrown out of the grand jury.
Mr. Boutros would also have this Court and others believe that he stopped the grand jury proceedings “in real time” when he learned that the prosecutors had dismissed members of the grand jury who rejected the government’s proposed indictment. Per Mr. Boutros, “[w]ith respect to the excusing of grand jurors that took place, which was the second time the prosecutor sought to return an indictment, that I was aware of in real time. And once I became aware of it, I immediately called off the grand jury session.” This statement, when viewed alongside the grand jury audio recording and transcripts from October 16, 2025, raises further questions about representations made to the Court and should not be readily accepted.
A review of the grand jury transcripts from October 16, 2025, shows that “Experienced AUSA 1” dismissed the first grand juror at or about 9:30:04 during the initial portion of the proceeding that day. Dkt. 220, p. 10. The second transcript reflects that there was a break between proceedings on October 16, 2025. According to the time stamp depicted on the transcript of the second portion of the proceeding, Agent A’s last answer was at 10:11:18. Dkt. 220, p. 54. The audio recording reflects that Agent A testified for approximately twelve minutes before there was a break in his testimony to replace batteries in the recorder. According to the audio recording, after several minutes passed, the “Experienced AUSA” told members of the Grand Jury that one of their bosses just showed up and they needed to continue their presentation another day. According to the time stamp on the audio recording, this was at 1:01:18. This sequence of events raises further questions:
- Who notified a supervisor that the “Experienced AUSA 1” and “Junior AUSA” excused members of the grand jury from the proceeding? How and when was such notification made?
- Was this reported directly to the Front Office? By whom?
- And who specifically informed Mr. Boutros?
- Did the “Experienced AUSA 1” and “Junior AUSA”, in fact, continue in the grand jury after having reported this misconduct in “real time?”
- Who was the supervisor that appeared outside the grand jury and instructed the “Experienced AUSA 1” and “Junior AUSA” to discontinue the proceeding that day?
- Did Mr. Boutros accurately report to the Court that he terminated the grand jury session in real time?
6 “Junior AUSA” told the Court on May 21, 2026 that the Criminal Chief was notified and “the Criminal Chief said we need to call this off for the day to gather, understand the right protocol.” 5/21/2026 Tr. at 32.
Not mentioned in this description is the timestamp on the unredacted transcript that shows the (presumed) second session started at 2:43PM. According to the filing, the recording shows the second session happened at an entirely different time: 1:01PM.
Not does this mention that there was a first (or second?) mention of the battery (albeit one that fit into the transcript temporally) — by someone unidentified! — nine minutes into the second session.
Q. What are your duties with regard to that, car?
A. Well, any time that I need to carry out a — any duties I will — I will be in my — my government-furnished vehicle, and including home to 15:19:51 21 work. You know, trans
Q. I’m sorry. Let me stop you for a minute.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: The battery is died.
THE WITNESS: Sorry, the —
MS. MECKLENBURG: That was just the computer. We’ll get it back up when I want to show pictures.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. We’re have a battery — 15:20:26
BY MS. MECKLENBURG: Q. Thank you for keeping me honest. But I think you misunderstood my question. Do you have any duties with regard to keeping the safety and condition of that car?
Here’s what the increasingly irreconcilable three known version of that grand jury session(s) show:
The problem I had recognized in the first post is that the clearly labeled presumptive second session starts at 2:43, with the first question asked at what the marginal timestamp says was 3:10 and the second-to-last at 3:33, only to somehow revert back to the time of the first transcript, 10:11.
Now, in addition to the different time of the afternoon, 1:01 instead of 2:43, by description, the ICE officer testified for a total of ten minutes less in the recording, 12 minutes as opposed to — by the timestamp in the margin — 23 minutes.
I have no idea what the reality is.
What seems increasingly the case, however, is that on top of redactions that hid how Mecklenburg threw out grand jurors who were not willing to indict people for being driven into by a bi SUV, there’s something funny with the transcripts so we can’t even tell how DOJ responded to that.
Redacted transcripts:
Unredacted transcripts:
- October 9 unredacted transcript
- Redacted 3-61; omitted 4-60
- Evan Hylton Testimony: pages 10-53 (pages 54-61 omitted from his transcript, but included in unredacted)
- October 16 unredacted transcript
- Redacted 2-4; omitted 3
- Redacted 8-11; omitted 9-10
- Redacted 25-26 (none omitted)
- Redacted 27-28 (none omitted)
- Redacted 29-37; 30-36 omitted
- ICE witness: introduced 37, testimony starts 40
- October 23 unredacted transcript
- Redacted 3-5; omitted 4-5
- Redacted 29-41; omitted 30-39
- Redacted 52-57; omitted 53-55
- ICE witness: testimony begins 68
I think the spidey-sense is on target here, because as noted in the post AUSA Hogan already tried to gaslight Judge Perry on compliance to her earlier requests. It’s therefore not unusual that other anomalies would be present especially given Do’J’ conduct in other cases. I think the best rule for responding is to remember this is what the USG thought they could safely release, not what they were required to release. There will be more to find.
So, like in other cases (see Katie Phang’s process in her case) the best play IMHO is to call out everything to force answers for each anomaly in government briefings. If not answered, the claim becomes stipulated (though IANAL, and I may be wrong here). Either they’ll miss something and/or there will be Freudian slips to exploit because the current Do’J’ crew is incompetent because they are toadies.
Judge Perry is going to hit the roof because this is a BAD cover-up to misconduct. The list of persons required to attend from DOJ Central will be long. At this point, Boutros and Hogan should appear at hte next hearing with their own personal attorneys. One of them should be prepared to turn on the other, if they were smart (Ron Howard narrating: Neither was that smart).