11 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

Haha. I was on a federal grand jury for 6 months once. It was an interesting experience. We were tucked into a very private room in the bowels of a fed courthouse. We each had a notebook we had to hand back as we left. I came in during the process of several cases so I could be a newby and not know diddly about what had happened or what witnesses or attorneys had said before. We could ask whatever we wanted. The snacks were great. LOL. The ham sandwiches there were in danger of being indicted as was the defendants we never met. I would often see witnesses still handcuffed in the waiting area. I was retired then so I didn’t have much disruption in my life. Some drove 100 miles or more a day to get there. It was once a week. I mostly have no idea how the cases we heard turned out.

Expand full comment

In theory, the role of the grand jury is to decide if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a crime has been committed and a trial is warranted. The idea is to provide a barrier to unjust, unfounded, and politicized prosecutions.

In practice, it is the prosecutor's playpen. He has total control over what evidence the grand jury hears, and provides the guidance on the applicable statutes. The result it a system that frequently enables unjust, unfounded, and politicized prosecutions--such as the one Bragg is pursuing here.

The one time I was selected for jury duty the attorneys quickly decided they didn't want me on the jury during voire dire. Apparently independent thinking and a lack of awe for lawyers doth not a model juror make!

Expand full comment

I did the best I could as yes, we could only maybe infer the other side. I had never been on a jury of any sort before. The grand jury judge did a pretty good job explaining our brief.

Expand full comment

To my layman's eye the flaw is not the jurors, but the supposition implicit in the system that if the prosecutor is presenting to a grand jury he must believe he has enough evidence to go to trial

I am not a lawyer, so it's purely speculation on my part, but I don't see how Bragg gets over the statute of limitations hurdle. Everything I have seen thus far is that Bragg's theory of the case puts the crimes all in 2017. We are well beyond the statute of limitations for Class E felonies.

Ordinary citizens who comprise the grand jury might not perceive that, but if this case gets tossed out for that reason Bragg made a rookie unforced error.

Which is the danger political prosecutions pose to the criminal justice system. When cases are brought merely to attack another individual, without regard for the particulars of the law, the credibility of the entire system is thrown into the hazard.

Bragg is channeling Stalin's chief prosecutor Lavrenty Beria: "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." Our system of justice is supposed to operate on a much higher standard than that

Expand full comment

So true. We have descended into a very bad place. This will blow up and even more distrust (rightfully so) will further erode our justice and political system. Jeff Child’s on Coffee&Covid substack explained thing pretty well as the initial observations of a lawyer.

Expand full comment

I should add that, as I am not a lawyer and am only giving my layman's view of the law, I welcome any and all lawyers who want to point out where I get the law wrong. A good discussion is the best way to learn new things!

Expand full comment

Still, we are able to analyze systems that affect us in major and minor ways. I try to unleash my “Spidey Senses “ more often these days. You have informed me a great deal in the economic space—confirming my “Spidey Sense” on this mess. 😀

Expand full comment