News

And grand juries are famously easy to persuade, as this is just the prosecutor and whatever evidence they choose to present, there's no defence lawyer involved. The case is either ridiculously thin, or the prosecutor just doesn't know how to do their job.

Imagine that room. The Prosecutors are doing their best to paint this woman as an out-of-control, rabid beast, while the entire room is looking at him with their arms crossed, a smirk on every single face.

And then they do it two more times, with the same result.

That job sucks.

Yeah, the three times part is really alarming. Once if they fail to indict, you might go back a second time with reduced charges. Three times on the same charge is a sign of authoritarianism.

If you tried three times and failed, then maybe find a new line of work.

Remember that Trump picked the current US Attorney in DC based on her stellar track record running her own Fox News legal analysis show. She is at least more qualified than many of his other picks, though: she was an actual DA and judge before becoming a TV pundit.

She doesn't have to find a new line of work because the President has her back, as long as she keeps attacking his perceived enemies. Expect Trump to complain about how grand juries are "woke" and need to be eliminated.

I'm wondering if it's more the people than the prosecutor.

DC isn't happy with how it's being treated, not sure why a grand jury would side with ICE. Jury nullification starts at the grand jury.

Yeah, the old joke among lawyers is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for murder if the prosecutor wanted them to.

For the unaware, there is no defense at the grand jury, because the person hasn’t been accused of a crime yet. The grand jury is when the prosecutor lays out the evidence and basically asks “do I have enough to actually charge them with a crime?”

But the key factor is that the prosecutor has full discretion in what evidence they show. They can present evidence that isn’t admissible in court. They can present evidence that they know was fabricated. They can exclude exculpatory evidence that would prove the person’s innocence. Hell, the prosecutor could just scribble a quick “lmao yeah I did it. Signed, [suspect]” on a napkin and present it as evidence. And there’s no defense lawyer, because the suspect hasn’t been charged with a crime yet. If the prosecutor wants the grand jury to indict, the grand jury will functionally always do so.

And the inverse is true too. If they don’t want to press charges on someone, (for instance, a cop in a high profile case), then they can just refuse to bring any evidence for the grand jury. The grand jury is only allowed to rule based on the evidence that was presented. If a cop strangles a black dude on the street while dropping N-words left and right, and surrounded by cameras? The grand jury won’t be allowed to use any of that evidence unless the prosecutor presents it. Prosecutors often use this to avoid pressing charges, by refusing to bring any evidence. Then they jump in front of the news cameras and cry about how they tried to prosecute, but the mean grand jury refused to indict. But vote for me, because the public wanted it and I tried! Since the members are kept secret, blaming the faceless grand jury is an easy out for prosecutors.

And that’s a large part of what makes this specific case so interesting. They’re going to charge the person even after the grand jury refused to indict multiple times. And again, getting an indictment is laughably easy. This means the grand jury is either rebelling despite the evidence, or truly doesn’t believe any of the evidence that the prosecutor has presented.

They don't have to win to win. They just have to keep you afraid, and prove they are willing to wring citizens through the legal machinery designed to break and bankrupt poor people.

And then sometimes they do win, and the cage gets a little bit smaller.

Until a judge steps in and shuts that shit down, if the people won’t prosecute then the people won’t prosecute.

It takes a judge to do that though.

We'll see how long that lasts. It has only been 7 months.

There is a saying that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.

The fact that the prosecutor couldn't get an indictment not once but thrice is damning.

All a fascist needs to suck is the barrel of a gun

That's why due process is one of their targets.

Jury nullification is when a case goes to trial and the jury gives a not guilty verdict even though everyone agrees the person did in fact do the crime.

A grand jury declining to indict means somebody is attempting to press charges but the jury isn't willing to try them even before the trial begins, being an indicator that the prosecution might not have enough evidence worth wasting a judge and jury's time.

This isn't even an actual trial jury. Grand Juries are basically just to confirm the prosecution has a minimum amount of evidence to bother with a trial.

Three separate sets of people have decided there's basically no evidence for what they want to charge.

Nope, because they haven’t officially charged the person with a crime until the indictment happens. The grand jury has refused to indict multiple times, meaning the person hasn’t officially been charged with a crime yet.

chocked

Like "immobilized with the help of blocks or chocks to prevent rolling"?