- 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.
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.
I was on a grand jury and yeah, it’s basically prosecutor/cop saying “they did crime” and as a member of the jury it’s your job to decide “is maybe possibly a crime did” so really you have zero information as to what happened, just a “trust me bro”. So the fact that this got shut down AT ALL is screaming Incompetent prosecutor, very competent prosecutor who knows its horseshit, thinnest case to ever be cased, or (incredibly unlikely) a grand jury who knows their shit.
Honestly, this is so rare it makes me wonder if the prosecutor really wants to indict the woman. We have seen prosecutors using grand juries to not indict (cops) without accepting responsibility for it before. May be a prosecutor with some morals but under great pressure to support ICE.
Of course also possible that people can finally see through what is happening and are not buying the BS.
Imagine that room. The Prosecutors are doing their best to paint this woman as an out-of-control, rabid beast, while the entire room is looking at him with their arms crossed, a smirk on every single face.
And then they do it two more times, with the same result.
That job sucks.
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.
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 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.
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.
Thanks for this write up. I had no idea. The US justice system is such a mess.
There’s no justice system here. There is a legal system, but no justice system.
You might say it’s a criminal justice system.
They can present evidence that isn’t admissible in court. They can present evidence that they know was fabricated.
Source? I know they can hide evidence, but bringing up inadmissible evidence?
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.
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.
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.
A grand jury declining to indict three times on the same case is a warning
It’s a warning that the fucking ham sandwich is INNOCENT!!!
"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.
Ha ha suck it fascists.
All a fascist needs to suck is the barrel of a gun
Gonna be real funny when federal prosecutors get zero convictions because the American public knows they are fascist fucks.
That’s why due process is one of their targets.
Yes but for now the sandwich bandit walks free
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.
This is what happens when the boss is a hack propagandist whose half-drunk all the time, making decisions with the same logic that she demands justice on TV, for outrage and ratings.
Come to find out, real court doesn’t work like the Neilson ratings, and you actually have to have an actual case, if you want to put an actual human being in actual prison for actual years.
Careful with that talk, pal, some people might take offense to having any faith in the complex system in these parts.
Grand juries can also be nullified. If the grand jury believes nobody should be charged for the crime they can claim the evidence is insufficient.
But like with regular juries, you didn’t nullify, you just didn’t buy the government’s story
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.
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
