Wonttakeitanymore

Another NWr l*****t troll

Justice101

As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”

Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked, what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies in rare circumstances — his story is so airtight that there’s no downside in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.

Wonttakeitanymore

They deserve it

EmilyD

A prosecutor presents an accusation and supporting evidence to the grand jury. The grand jury then decides whether or not the prosecutor can proceed with a criminal trial. Until the person is convicted with a crime at that trial, they remain only ACCUSED of it, which is where things stand right now....and which is what I posted above. You are "serving up crow" or, as I said, crowing yourself, over a mere accusation. I would advise you stop your crowing until he is convicted (or eat the crow you're making if he is acquitted).

What do you think a grand jury does?

woodguru

How do you like your crow runner?

dwp66

Of course it's an "accusation", no arguments there, but not the kind you made up in your head.

This is what you said: It's an "accusation by a committee made up entirely of people who have expressed their hatred of him.....ALL of whom v**ed against him in the past."

Please explain that sentence. I'll wait patiently.

EmilyD

Oh you are a crafty one!!! You left out an important phrase in my first post...here is the complete sentence I posted:

"An accusation by a committee made up entirely of people who have expressed their hatred of him.....ALL of whom v**ed against him in the past, and now this!"

They didn't "get him" with the J6 "evidence"....and now they're trying this. It's one continuous accusation....from the Mueller investigation, to the two impeachments, to the J****** 6 f**e committee to the raid on his home to this...

I have to wonder how many Democrats are on that grand jury who have stated their dislike for Trump, and how many of them have v**ed against him - or supported v****g against him - in the many other failed attempts to keep him from running and exposing them for the snakes they are.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

If we are talking about J** 6th committee she is absolutely right.. If we are talking about Grand Jury in Blue state, bluest city she is also right!!.. This town really h**es him..I bet all the juries are Democrats who really want to see him in jail...

elledee

Dishing out crow to lefties one of life's little pleasures

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

OK, counselor, what is a grand jury?

But first:

What It Means When a Trump Grand Jury Foreperson Editorializes

David Schultz, University of Minnesota Law School

Grand juries defend personal freedom by checking zealous prosecutors and government abuse of power. They are supposed to be apolitical checks or brakes on public opinion and any rush to accuse and convict individuals of crimes.

Yet what happens when grand juries or specific jurors go rogue or are captured by the very politics and polarization they are supposed to avoid?

This was the problem when a Fulton County, Ga. foreperson commented on a grand jury report and investigation. The jury looked into possible criminal activity from former President Donald Trump’s 2020 phone call to Georgia’s secretary of state, allegedly asking that e******n returns be altered.

Reform Needed

Grand juries became central to US Constitutional law via the Fifth Amendment. Their deliberations are intended to be secret to ensure impartiality and objectivity and protect decisions from being politicized.

Yet grand juries don’t always work like this. More often, they are cloaked in secrecy, serving as tools of prosecutors. With the latter the only attorney in the room, grand juries can be manipulated into indicting.

The US Supreme Court allows evidence into grand jury proceedings that otherwise often can’t be admitted at trial. Prosecutors are often elected, facing political pressures to act especially during e******n years.

Some claim racial biases play into charging and indictments. For these reasons many argue that grand juries need more t***sparency and checks.

Yet, the necessary reforms weren’t on display in Fulton County.

Fuel to the Fire

Grand jury reports are generally secret to protect the innocent as well as those who potentially could be charged with a crime.

Disclosing evidence or possible indictments could taint an eventual trial or subject witnesses to undue harassment. This is particularly problematic in a high-profile case investigating possible criminal activity of a former president.

In an atmosphere of severe political polarization and distrust, some believe the grand jury probe is a political witch hunt. However meritorious and legitimate the inquiry, every step and decision is being viewed through a partisan lens.

Releasing the redacted grand jury report was a mistake. While no doubt well-intentioned by a judge to provide some t***sparency, its release, though it contained few details, damaged the criminal justice system.

It led to speculation about who might have lied and gets indicted, and it put national media and political pressure on the prosecutor act.

This politicized an already-charged investigation, and the grand juror politicized it even more. In what looks like an Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame moment, comments from a grand jury foreperson simply pour more gasoline on the political fire and sets a terrible precedent.

Unfortunate Example

What next—will other grand jurors come out with conflicting statements? Will future grand jurors be paid for their stories?

Many already questioned the political motives of this investigation, raising the question of how impartial the grand jurors were, and how all this affects the Fulton County prosecutor’s final decision, and public confidence in other future legal proceedings.

Grand juries need to be fixed. Possible criminal activity surrounding the 2020 Georgia p**********l e******n should be investigated. Justice needs to be done. None of that is served by what is happening now in Fulton County.

Richard Painter, University of Minnesota Law School

A grand jury’s role is to decide whether criminal charges should be filed. Disclosure of information provided to a grand jury can be a criminal offense. When the grand jury finishes its work, the case is still in progress unless the grand jury doesn’t recommend indicting anyone.

Public comments by grand jurors could prejudice the proceeding, although this problem can be remedied if trial jurors who heard the grand juror’s statements are excused.

Prosecutors make some public comments when charging a case, so public comments by grand jurors usually don’t pose a greater risk unless they go beyond what prosecutors normally would say.

Traditionally, however, prosecutors communicate basic facts about the indictment—or a special grand jury’s recommendations for an indictment—while grand jurors remain silent and allow grand jury indictments and investigative reports to speak for themselves.

Unfortunate Media Tour

This is the way it should be, and the public comments by a member of the Fulton County special grand jury were unfortunate. In most cases, including this one, grand juror press interviews add little to public understanding of the process.

It is unseemly for a grand juror to talk with the press about the charging decision, because we expect the prosecution to speak with one voice through trained prosecutors who decide what should and shouldn’t be said publicly before trial.

Prosecutors know the ethics rules defining what they can and can’t properly say to the public before trial. Talkative grand jurors also open the prosecution up to attack in the press and from supporters of potential defendants, which is what has happened here.

Still, it is hard to imagine the grand juror’s public comments being more prejudicial to the criminal trial than the wording of the indictment itself if there is to be one.

Nobody says that indictments shouldn’t be released to the press to not prejudice a criminal trial. Most indictments are publicly released as soon as they are filed.

Grand jurors should stay silent and let prosecutors do the talking. But in this case, as in most other cases, the prejudicial effect of a talkative grand juror are minimal. Secret grand jury information wasn’t disclosed.

This grand juror press interview shouldn’t have happened, but it won’t prejudice the proceeding. There is absolutely no reason for the proceeding not to continue its course until justice is done.

David Super, Georgetown Law

It was startling to see the forewoman of Georgia’s special grand jury talking with a reporter.

While this wasn’t an ordinary grand jury, this interview doesn’t raise serious questions of fairness to those who may be charged. The tumult says more about a slow news week than any possible criminal cases.

Grand juries act on information presented to them by witnesses. Prosecutors present evidence and recommend indictments. Grand jurors then act, typically without any opportunity for the accused to present their side of the story.

It is said that many grand juries would indict a cheese sandwich if a prosecutor asked them to. Fairness is supposed to be addressed at trial.

We have become increasingly skeptical of grand jury one-sidedness over the years. The Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to rely on them to charge most serious crimes.

Yet this is one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights never applied to the states. Some states have cut back dramatically on grand juries or abolished them altogether, having prosecutors simply bring criminal charges in their own names.

Georgia’s Version

Georgia, however, seems to have gone in the opposite direction. It requires that prosecutors obtain indictments from a charging grand jury before proceeding to trial.

Georgia also allows prosecutors to convene special investigative grand juries to help sort through complex cases. Therefore prosecutors may obtain sworn testimony from key players when they don’t yet know enough to recommend indictments.

The special investigative grand jury investigated former President Donald Trump’s attempts to get Georgia in his column despite having been rejected by a majority of Georgia’s v**ers. It had no power to issue indictments.

It chose to make recommendations to the prosecutor, but those were essentially meaningless—any criminal charges would have to come from an entirely separate charging grand jury that must weigh the evidence itself.

And even if a charging grand jury did indict, all defendants would have the right to defend vigorously before an entirely separate trial jury that they would help select.

I would prefer we abandon grand juries completely—they’re wasteful, expensive, and add little to the process.
Avoid the Press

Those involved in criminal investigations—prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, as well as grand jurors—should avoid media interviews so that only testimony vetted at trial gets into the public domain.

And I certainly object when secret grand jury evidence is made public selectively, because those named may lack access to information that might clear them.

Yet this interview doesn’t seem to cause any problems, because Emily Kohrs didn’t say much. She said the grand jurors felt some witnesses lied. Many grand jurors do.

She didn’t say who they think lied or what the supposed lies were. Reporters following up predictably heard a chorus of, “It wasn’t me!” from witnesses—and nothing she said contradicted that.

Kohrs also said they recommended indicting some people whose names we know and some people whose names we don’t—which doesn’t tell me anything.

Grand juries have never been designed to be fair. The special investigatory grand jury in Georgia is no exception. But the crumbs the forewoman provided in her interview—none of which identified any individual—are hardly grounds for concern.

dwp66

Boy, that's some cut & paste dissertation you got there, didn't notice anything in it I really disagreed with, though. It seems to be reasonable discourse among law professors - a profession I never claimed. My reply to EmilyD was based on this: "It's an "accusation by a committee made up entirely of people who have expressed their hatred of him.....ALL of whom v**ed against him in the past." I had no idea she was referencing J** 6, because that's not what the discussion was even about.

I totally agreed with this: "And even if a charging grand jury did indict, all defendants would have the right to defend vigorously before an entirely separate trial jury that they would help select." That's right, no matter what the GJ does, Trump is entitled to a Jury of his peers. That's what he will likely get.

So now what we are going to hear from the Right is how the "Jury is R****d", just like the e******n. I can see it coming.

Btw, I know exactly what a Grand Jury is - I served on one in San Luis Obispo County, CA. for 30 days back in 2021.

Ricktloml

Unbelievable isn't it. And the International Biden Crime Family, (IBCF) just received their split of hundreds of thousands of dollars through a proxy from C*******t China...doled out in the hopes it wouldn't be noticed, like all the other influence peddling money Gestapo Joe/IBCF have received throughout the years they have been selling out this country for personal gain. Gestapo Joe is C*********D by C*******t China/Ukraine/Russia/50 other countries the Gestapo Joe/IBCF has been peddling influence to. The price for the Gestapo Joe/IBCF is treason...and they are close to destroying the country in their greed/lust for money/power

SeaLass Loc: Western Soviet Socialist Republics

And perhaps you will again. I'll be behind you serving some humble pie for dessert.

SeaLass Loc: Western Soviet Socialist Republics

Now that would be a VERY interesting development!

SeaLass Loc: Western Soviet Socialist Republics

"Grand Jury":

1) A legal entity whose sole job is to listen to biased presentations in order to decide if there is enough evidence to suggest the possibility that anyone committed a crime more serious than jaywalking.

2) A means of legal accusation only slightly less conclusive than the "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime" approach.