2026年6月3日 / 美国东部时间晚上10:12 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
南方贫困法律中心周三请求一名联邦法官考虑对联邦检察官处以处罚，此前美国司法部将一份针对该非营利组织的未签名、未盖章的替代起诉书副本发给了媒体成员。
周二，美国司法部宣布已获得针对南方贫困法律中心的替代起诉书，其中包含一些新的指控，称该组织涉嫌利用捐款渗透仇恨团体，声称这些资金被用于购买焚烧十字架的材料以及三K党的长袍和帽子。
这份新的起诉书并未增加任何被告。它仍然包含11项电信欺诈、银行欺诈和共谋洗钱的罪名，与4月份的原始起诉书所列罪名一致。原始起诉书指控南方贫困法律中心在极端主义团体中安插线人，却未将这一做法告知捐赠者或银行。
南方贫困法律中心的律师在周三提交的法庭文件中称，这份非正式的替代起诉书副本在公开归档前就被不当发给了记者，违反了联邦大陪审团保密规则。
他们请求法官下令司法部就其行为作出解释，并说明为何本案检察官不应面临处罚。
南方贫困法律中心表示，司法部“在正式提交合法文件并通知辩护律师（或向其提供副本）之前，就将一份未签名、未盖章的微软Word版替代起诉书草稿发给了媒体成员”，并补充称，司法部将“媒体战略置于大陪审团保密这一神圣不可侵犯的规则之上”。
该组织的律师写道，在案件正式公开前泄露案件信息可能会损害南方贫困法律中心的利益，制造出“单方面的叙事，而南方贫困法律中心无法对此作出回应，否则只会加剧损害”。
哥伦比亚广播公司新闻已联系美国司法部征求置评。
南方贫困法律中心的律师表示，发给新闻媒体的替代起诉书副本“包含了周二上午‘撰写’和‘最后修改’该文件的司法部律师的元数据”。
这份微软Word版本中还包含了大陪审团周三提交并公开归档的替代起诉书中没有的内容。
南方贫困法律中心的律师称，他们在周二晚间联系阿拉巴马州中部地区美国检察官办公室，询问为何记者们在索要这份未签名起诉书的置评材料时，首席检察官无法作出解释，需要收集更多信息。
南方贫困法律中心的律师写道：“在数十年的集体执业经历中，包括我们曾在司法部担任检察官，我们所有人都从未见过像司法部昨晚这样的行为——分发后来被证明并非大陪审团提交并于今日归档的正式替代起诉书的文件。”
“这种行为违反了联邦规则、司法部自身政策的字面规定和精神实质，甚至违背了遵守正常法庭程序、公平对待被指控 wrongdoing者的基本职业操守常识。”
Southern Poverty Law Center asks judge to weigh sanctions against DOJ for sending unsigned copy of indictment to media
June 3, 2026 / 10:12 PM EDT / CBS News
The Southern Poverty Law Center asked a federal judge on Wednesday to consider sanctioning federal prosecutors, after the Justice Department shared an unsigned and unstamped copy of a superseding indictment against the nonprofit with members of the media.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced it had obtained a superseding indictment against the SPLC that contained some new allegations about how it allegedly used donations to infiltrate hate groups, claiming the money helped buy materials for cross burnings and for Ku Klux Klan robes and hats.
The new indictment does not name any additional defendants. It still contains 11 counts of wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, the same charges that were outlined in the original April indictment accusing the SPLC of paying informants in extremist groups without disclosing the practice to donors or banks.
The SPLC’s attorneys alleged in court filings Wednesday that the unofficial copy of the superseding indictment was improperly shared with journalists before it was publicly docketed, in violation of federal grand jury secrecy rules.
They asked the judge to order the Justice Department to provide an explanation for its conduct and explain why prosecutors on the case should not face sanctions.
The Justice Department “released an unsigned, unstamped Microsoft Word version of a draft superseding indictment to members of the media—before unsealing any legitimate filing and before alerting (or providing a copy to) defense counsel,” the SPLC said, adding the department was putting “putting media strategy before the sacrosanct rules on grand jury secrecy.”
The group’s lawyers wrote that revealing information about the case before it is formally made public could prejudice the SPLC by creating a “one-sided narrative that the SPLC could not address without compounding the harm.”
CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
The SPLC’s lawyers said that the version of the superseding indictment shared with the news media “contained the underlying metadata of the DOJ attorneys who had ‘authored’ and ‘last modified’ the document” on Tuesday morning.
The Microsoft Word version also contained some language that was not in the superseding indictment returned by the grand jury and publicly docketed on Wednesday.
The SPLC’s lawyers said when they reached out to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Middle District of Alabama on Tuesday evening to ask why reporters were seeking comment on an unsigned copy of the indictment, the lead prosecutor could not explain it and needed to gather more information.
“In decades of collective practice, including serving as prosecutors at DOJ, none of the SPLC’s counsel has ever seen anything remotely like what DOJ did last night—distributing what turned out not to be the actual superseding indictment returned by the grand jury and docketed today,” the SPLC’s lawyers wrote.
“This conduct violates the letter and spirit of the federal rules, DOJ’s own policies, and even common-sense notions of professionalism to abide by the normal court procedure and treat those accused of wrongdoing fairly.”
发表回复