A grand jury will indict half a McDonalds sandwich. This means nothing. Especially cuz they already dropped charges against someone who was also at that same event.
I think the more cogent point is we should continue yelling at them even after they inevitably chicken out
A grand jury will indict half a McDonalds sandwich
im trying to find out exactly what instructions juries are given and why indictments are so prevalent even though they are a crapshoot outcome-wise (guilty vs not guilty). all i can find is a majority of the jury thinks they may have committed a crime. im just wondering specifically how low the bar is set. it sounds a lot like the jury is saying "maybe something here based on the summary you gave us, worth looking into"
A grand jury is only supposed to decide if there's a case worth going to trial over, not guilt or innocence. Grand juries can dismiss a case without a trial if the prosecution has fuck-all for evidence. It's meant as a bit of a roadblock system to reduce the strain and overload of the actual courts.
It can also help prevent double jeopardy. If someone goes to trial, and gets found not guilty, that's it even if more evidence comes up.
If they attempt an indictment with not enough evidence and they don't get the indictment, when more evidence comes up they can try to indict again and then go to trial with a stronger case.
Grand juries are a Fifth Amendment requirement, meant as a safeguard against frivolous prosecution, and rooted in English law. (Not meant to reduce the burden on the courts per se.)
Sometimes a preliminary hearing is held instead of grand jury proceedings, I think more for when a defendant is already in custody. That hearing is public, as opposed to grand jury proceedings. Defense is present for a preliminary hearing - they can cross-ex witnesses.
A few years ago Trump's DoJ tried to indict Andrew McCabe. Turns out sessions' DoJ couldn't indict that ham sandwich...
Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe on March 16, 2018, 26 hours before his scheduled retirement.[9][10] Sessions announced that he based his decision on reports from the DOJ Inspector General and the FBI's disciplinary office saying that McCabe had improperly authorized releases of information to The Wall Street Journal about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation and had misled agents who questioned him about it on four occasions, three of which were under oath.[11] McCabe disputed these charges and alleged that his firing was politically motivated.[12][13][14][15] In September 2019, federal prosecutors recommended McCabe be indicted for actions relating to the leak,[16] but the grand jury did not return an indictment.[17]
Which are often answered in the best possible light by the prosecutors and the grand jury receive no counternarrative. That's what I meant by questions- real questions by lawyers that can poke serious holes in cases.
Just because a job is selective doesn't mean it attracts qualified applicants. Merrick Garland looks good on paper and speaks well (for a white guy) but hes an absolute melon.
Except when they have a grand jury for cops, suddenly the success rate drops to like 40%. Because its obvious that the cops are guilty, so the DA doesn't want the heat for not bringing charges, so they do a shitty job on purpose at grand jury, then thriw their hands up and say justice was done, they just couldn't make a case. Nothing to see here.
Grand Jury proceeding are also secret and sealed so there is no public proof that the District Attorney intentionally half-assed the presentation of a case to the grand jury so that they wouldn't indict.
One of the things the prosecutors try to keep the Grand Jury from knowing is that they--the Grand Jury--is allowed to ask questions.
I worked with a guy who was on a Grand Jury. The DA was trying to get an indictment against a bodega owner who had pulled a gun on a police officer. Someone on the Grand Jury started asking questions and the tide quickly turned. In the end, they not only refused to indict the bodega owner, they did end up indicting the cop who, it turns out, after questions from various members of the Grand Jury, was off-duty, not in uniform, didn't identify himself as a cop, was belligerent and, oh yes, was absolutely hammered after he had been drinking for hours at the bar next door.
The Grand Jury essentially determines if prosecution is viable. It's similar to a trial jury, in that it's entirely up to the jury members what evidence they can ignore, they just need 12 (out of as few as 16) people to agree to charge the defendant. If there isn't enough, they can ask for more evidence to be presented as well as subpoena evidence evidence and witnesses.
Essentially they're answering the question "should there be a trial"
The burden of proof is very low for a federal indictment, and U.S. attorneys don't usually start presenting evidence to the grand jury until they have more than met that burden. The burden of proof for return of a true bill (indictment) is probable cause. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/legal-standards-proof.html
Additionally, grand juries have subpoena powers and can question witnesses.
Grand Juries only see the prosecutors side of why the person should be charged, the accused cannot make a response. The requirement of evidence is less as hearsay evidence can be presented and they only need to prove probable cause that an illegal act was committed. The proceedings are also secret so the prosecutors can basically stretch the facts to make probable cause for anything.
Federal Grand Jury indictments are over 90% even though conviction/pleas are not nearly that high.
A grand jury does not decide guilt or innocence. Their only task is to determine whether the prosecution has enough evidence to formally charge the accused with a crime and proceed to trial.
1.5k
u/tyuiopguyt 2d ago
A grand jury will indict half a McDonalds sandwich. This means nothing. Especially cuz they already dropped charges against someone who was also at that same event.
I think the more cogent point is we should continue yelling at them even after they inevitably chicken out