- cross-posted to:
- thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world
A grand jury declined for a third time to indict a D.C. woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent during an inmate swap with ICE – a rare loss for federal prosecutors that could foreshadow further trouble if the case goes to trial.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office said in a filing Monday it would move ahead with charging Sidney Lori Reid with a misdemeanor for the alleged assault outside the D.C. Jail in July. A magistrate judge had given prosecutors until Monday afternoon to secure an indictment against Reid or see the felony version of the assault charge dismissed.
A grand jury declining to indict three times on the same case is a warning the evidence may not stand up at trial, according to attorney Christopher Macchiaroli, a partner at Silverman Thompson Slutkin White who previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the federal prosecutor’s office in D.C.
You must log in or # to comment.
Ha ha suck it fascists.
Is Jury nullification in play here too?
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.
So can they just keep forming grand juries until one gives them the result they want or is it a three strikes kind of thing? Halfway sarcastic here
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.
When I was on a grand jury a couple years back, every one of those assholes voted to indict on every single charge. Even the guy who was sleeping voted to indict. I suggested maybe we don’t participate in sending people to jail for marijuana, and they all looked at me like I was a crazy person.
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.
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.
I think more people should know this. We know that ACAB but prosecutors seem like they’re happy to lie down with dogs.
Is this not double jeopardy?
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.
So just harassment then. Cool cool cool.
Let this be a reminder to all called to jury duty (grand or otherwise) that you do not have to convict.
Reid was arrested in July for allegedly resisting attempts to restrain her after she refused to back away from ICE officers who were conducting arrests outside the D.C. Jail. In the process, they said, an FBI agent received scrapes to the back of her hand.
and:
Reid’s attorneys, assistant federal public defenders Tezira Abe and Eugene Ohm, say she was arrested by officers who didn’t want to be filmed. Video evidence presented during a preliminary hearing captured an ICE officer telling Reid during her arrest, “You should have just stayed home and minded your business.”
Lady is trying to film. Legal. An agent gets scrapes while trying to stop her. Lady is charged with “an enhanced felony version of an assault charge that requires inflicting bodily injury on a federal officer and carries up to eight years in prison.”
Say NO.
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.
Since grand juries are also usually local, it’s also possible that they’ve pissed off enough people around DC that any case involving ICE won’t go through.
Or both!
Not improbable, true.
Incredible how just a little bit of due process scrutiny makes fascist bullshit fall apart completely
We’ll see how long that lasts. It has only been 7 months.
"If you watch the video closely you can see where Reid assaults the FBI agents fist with her face. "
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.
They’re gonna lose because Ice has no jurisdiction over citizens. Fill stop.
Do not comply.
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.
“You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride” seems to be this administration’s working motto.
Sure, you can have the “law” on your side, and it wouldn’t matter one iota when you’re getting shanked in some cell in El Salvador or Uganda. The bad guys win anyway. At worst for them you come back, no skin off their backs.
Fasicism always fails. May take awhile. But if does. Takes people with courage. Most generations dont have enough on their own. Each one has less people willing to endure hardships for greatness and freedom and, they become more more in pablum, and state backed entertainment
Fascism in Portugal lasted from 1933 to 1974.
In Spain it lasted from 1936 to 1975.
Fascism did fail (specifically, in Portugal there was a Revolution and in Spain the Fascists just gave power away whilst keeping their loot) but it took about 50 years in both cases.
Had Hitler and Mussolini not gone to war with basically most of the World, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if their regimes hadn’t lasted until well after both died (which was what happened in both Portugal and Spain - those regimes only fell a while after after Salazar and Franco were dead).
Meanwhile just to give you an idea of how bad things can be under Fascism without people rebelling, Portugal during the Fascist days was a dirt poor country with mainly subsistence agriculture which even received Food Aid from the rest of Europe and this without even having gone through a war. Just a reminder that during the Age of the Discoveries, both Portugal and Spain were for a while (about a century) the pinnacle powers in the World to the point that they divided it in half between themselves (which is why in South America Brasil speaks Portuguese and the rest speak Spanish and why most Portuguese “colonies” were in Africa whilst Spain was mostly present in South America), so it’s not as if those weren’t rich countries at some point.
So, yeah, you’re right that Fascism always falls (then again, so does everything else), but it can take a while to get there and entire generations can suffer horribly before things change.
I’m in my 40’s. I’m not changing jack shit, and these thugs aren’t going anywhere in the next two decades.
This battle is well and truly lost. I know “hope” is important but take a fucking look out of the window. Evil prevails, everywhere in the world simultaneously. “Good” people are at an automatic disadvantage by virtue of giving a shit about anything other than themselves. The game is rigged and has been for a long time. They’ve just stopped caring about the veneer that was on top of the ugly truth.
Sociopathy is the name of the game, and you can only beat them by playing by their rules.
Like I said, youngster.
Jesus. You can get a grand jury to indict on anything. If you tried three times and failed, then maybe find a new line of work.
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.
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.
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 sorry, but I still chocked at “US attorney J. PIRRO”
chocked
Like “immobilized with the help of blocks or chocks to prevent rolling”?
:P
They’ll just keep shopping juries until they find one that complies.
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.
