There have been a number of rumors suggesting that if CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald seeks indictments against Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, or others, then those indictments will be sealed. Why would that be? I asked Andrew McCarthy for a possible explanation, and this is what he wrote:

The rules of sealing are not hard and fast. There are three main justifications for it: (a) when multiple defendants will be indicted and there is a reasonable fear (because of the nature of the crimes or the defendants) that defendants will flee if they become aware that they are wanted, indictments will typically be sealed until law enforcement agents have everyone “in pocket” (i.e., located so that they can be placed under arrest on short notice); (b) if there is a reasonable fear that defendants will alter or destroy evidence if they become aware they are wanted, indictments may be sealed until the government can obtain and safeguard that evidence; and (c) if there are national security implications, indictments may be sealed until steps can be taken to notify the appropriate officials, so they can take steps to deal with whatever the national security fall-out may be. Leaving aside these considerations, no one usually complains about a reasonably brief sealing of any indictment in furtherance of some obvious logistical goal — like announcing the charges in a high profile case. (This is not much different in kind from instances where a jury alerts a judge that it has reached a verdict in a case, and the judge decides not to take the verdict until the following day — as happened in the OJ Simpson case.) My sense is that reasons (a) and (b) are inapplicable here. Reason (c) may well apply, and the brief sealing I just mentioned is probably justifiable under the circumstances.

One more note. Even if reason (c) is applicable, it is still not clear precisely why that would be the case. Ultimately, Fitzgerald should explain that, too.