For 2nd time, grand jury refuses to indict New York AG Letitia James: Sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/2nd-time-grand-jury-refuses-indict-new-york/story?id=128279779

345 points · 36 comments · view on lemmy.world

36 Comments

jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · 106 pts · 243d (24 replies)

I only learned like last year that you can keep convening grand juries until you get one that indicts. Seems kind of strange to me

nulluser@lemmy.world · 72 pts · 243d (3 replies)

But in the past it wasn't necessary because, as the saying went, you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The bar to indictment is incredibly low. So, it's actually extremely embarrassing to have the media talking about how you keep trying and failing.

Edit: I should have said it was rarely necessary.

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 243d

Ahh... To live in a time where "shame" was a thing again...

halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 243d

Not just keep trying and failing, but doing so multiple times in just a couple months. This DOJ is run by incompetence.

Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 243d

The bar to indictment is incredibly low

Unless a cop has murdered someone, of course. Then it's BARELY legal to convene a jury.

UnspecificGravity@piefed.social · 31 pts · 243d (12 replies)

They generally don't though because the burden to indict is SIGNFICANTLY lower than the burden to convict. Anyone that you cannot even get an indictment for isn't likely to be convicted at trial.

jacksilver@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 243d (11 replies)

Yeah, except that dealing with a legal defense costs a lot of time and money. So even if they can't convict they can use the courts as a means to punish.

Really shows how much our legal system needs an overhaul to prevent abuse like this.

chaogomu@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 243d (1 reply)

There's no defense at a grand jury hearing. So at least that's free. Likely not stress free.

jacksilver@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 243d

My point is Trump can keep brining it to a Grand Jury cause it effectively costs him nothing. It only takes one grand jury to indicate and then Trumps political enemies (Comey/etc.) are forced to pay legal fees (amongst other things).

Serinus@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 243d (6 replies)

Which is the whole point of grand juries.

We've gone for a century with prosecutors being afraid to test the grand jury because it's embarrassing to miss and mostly pointless.

Now we're seeking out fake prosecutors who don't give a fuck.

prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 243d

Because embarrassment is not a thing in US politics anymore. Turns out it was pretty much the only thing holding everything together.

jacksilver@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 243d (3 replies)

Yeah, just another destruction of norms.

Serinus@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 243d (2 replies)

Kind of. There was a reason to create the grand jury concept in the first place.

jacksilver@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 243d (1 reply)

Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing. My point was that the norm was not getting an indictment on a grand jury was embarrassing and hurt someone's career. This disincentivized prosecutors from repeatedly bringing a case to a Grand Jury. But Trump and his cronies don't care, breaking the norm, and will keep pushing to get what they want.

Serinus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 243d

That was the norm for the past century. The norm for centuries before that was that the King could fuck whoever he likes, metaphorically or literally, for any reason.

They're bringing back old norms.

Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 243d

also grand juries take significantly longer time to be seated than regular trial, enough to hurt working people financial situation, that arnt well off for jury service.

diverging@piefed.social · 4 pts · 243d (1 reply)

There's no defense at a grand jury.

jacksilver@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 243d

My point is Trump can keep brining it to a Grand Jury cause it effectively costs him nothing. It only takes one grand jury to indicate and then Trumps political enemies (Comey/etc.) are forced to pay legal fees (amongst other things).

BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 29 pts · 243d (2 replies)

When they wanted to prosecute the guy who threw a sub sandwich at the ICE agent, the Grand Jury shot them down twice. So they altered the charges so they didn't require a grand jury to go to court.

In court, the ICE agent whined about how he had PTSD, since the sandwich burst open on his uniform, and smeared mustard and onions all over it, which he had to smell all day, causing massive psychological harm.

The defense introduced a photograph of the sandwich, laying in the road, AFTER the throw, and it was still tightly wrapped. It hadn't burst open, no mustard or onions were smeared. The ICE agents entire testimony was a straight up lie. The jury found the sandwich thrower Not Guilty.

So I suspect that their next move will be to adjust the charges to bypass the Grand Jury.

mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 242d (1 reply)

Did they charge the ICE agent for lying under oath?

BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 8 pts · 242d

This is America. Of course not.

prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 243d

I think it's so rare because grand juries have an insanely high indictment rate. They typically don't convene them unless they know for certain that they'll indict. Which is why it was so rare up until the current administration.

danc4498@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 243d (2 replies)

It makes sense though. It’s not an actual trial, just a test to see if the prosecution has strong enough evidence to support an indictment. If not, they keep digging.

halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 243d (1 reply)

While true, Federal prosecutors historically don't even bother with charges if they're not sure of a conviction. This is just explicit evidence that this DOJ is both incompetent and focused on politics not justice.

danc4498@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 243d

Yeah, 100% the system is being abused. But like the Comey thing, they still need to follow the right procedures or it will backfire.

cecilkorik@lemmy.ca · 35 pts · 243d (3 replies)

Just keep bringing in more grand juries against her until you either get an indictment or she dies, either way she's tied up for life.

It's a DDoJ. Distributed-denial-of-justice.

minorkeys@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 243d

It's legal terrorism.

Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 243d

its the benghazi thing all over again, its to keep the Sound bytes for fox train going.

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 243d

either way she's tied up for life.

She doesn't need to do anything for a grand jury hearing. The defence isn't involved.

Arghblarg@lemmy.ca · 21 pts · 243d (2 replies)

The fact there's no double-jeopardy (triple? quadruple? Something not infinite at least?!) for indictments astounds me.

Then again it shouldn't surprise any more -- the US system seems to have a billion holes, like swiss-cheese, only left unexploited up until recently because those in power had, maybe, some small shred of shame and decency. All those loopholes must be absolutely sewn shut, and 'conventions' and 'gentlemenly guardrails' need to be made hard, fast, and most importantly ENFORCED laws if the country is to ever recover. I'm not hopeful.

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 243d

the US system seems to have a billion holes, like swiss-cheese, only left unexploited up until recently because those in power had, maybe, some small shred of shame and decency.

I guarantee you this is true of every nation in the world.

Serinus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 243d

This is one of those guardrails that's holding... so far.

ethnss@ttrpg.network · 8 pts · 243d (1 reply)

Do they get to keep trying until it works?

I'm starting to think anarchists were right.

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 243d

Well, until they get an indictment, yes. But it's very unlikely the case will do well if you struggle to even get a grand jury to say "yeah, there may be something to charge".

vegeta@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 243d

Let the ketchup fly

Plurrbear@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 243d

STOP WASTING TAX DOLLARS! GTFO it!