A “Grumbles” motion is actually a “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Release” (It’s called a “Grumbles” motion because the first people to argue it were Don and Patricia Grumbles.)
But what does it really explain and why is the case law it contains so important in Chelsea’s case?
Read the Executive Summary by Kelly Wright to find out. :-)
Excerpts from the Executive Summary:
If there is no coercive effect to their confinement, either because the grand jury has ended, or because there is no possible way they will be convinced to comply with the order to testify, then the confinement must be deemed punitive, and must end…
Simkin v. US, establishes that incarcerated witnesses must be freed from confinement if conditions arise that makes purging their contempt impossible. This would include not only the conclusion of the grand jury investigation, but cases in which the witness can demonstrate that their convictions make them “non-coercible.”…
To determine whether a witness is incoercible, judges review evidence of their character and beliefs, and if the judge is convinced that the confinement has no coercive effect, then it has, by definition, exceeded its lawful scope. Such a judgment would require the witness’ immediate release…
Some of the factors that may go into making an “individualized determination” as to the intransigence of the witness are:
the length of confinement
the witness’ connection to what is being investigated
the basis for refusal
the presumed need for the witness’ unique testimony
the witness’ community support
the witness’ conduct and demeanor.
Read the whole Executive Summary here.