Originally published at: ‘A Crock of Shit’: Amid Misconduct Allegations, Broadview Six Transcripts Offer Rare Window into Grand Jury - TPM – Talking Points Memo
Grand jury sessions are among the most tightly held elements of the criminal justice system. But thanks to the collapse of the federal case against Chicago’s Broadview Six, transcripts from the proceedings were released into public view on Tuesday. The transcripts document interactions between prosecutor Sheri Mecklenburg and the grand jurors that later gave rise…
5 Likes
- Vouching. Prohibited because the grand jury is required to decide the matter based on the evidence before it, not the assurances of prosecutors or the promise of more evidence at trial. Did not result in a true bill.
- Dismissing disagreeable grand jurors. Very bad because it deprives the disagreeable of input in the deliberations, leaving only those willing to indict with voices in the room. Plus, it makes a mockery of the voir dire that resulted in seating the panel in the first place. Did not result in a true bill.
- Talking with grand jurors outside the presence of the rest of the grand jury. Pretty bad because there’s no record of the communications, and it would be a violation of the defendant’s due process rights to harangue individual grand jurors in private rather than presenting evidence and argument to the whole panel. Probably did not cause the true bill, but it might well have and we’ll never know whether it did.
- The Groundhog Day grand jury. Serially presenting the same case over and over, particularly after dismissing the dissenting grand jurors, is basically a different form of vouching, as it invites the grand jury to disregard the evidence they have previously found insufficient and conclude instead that they just need to trust the prosecutor instead of their own judgement (and this shit will never end if they don’t go ahead and indict, which is kind of the same thing anyway). Probably caused the true bill.
44 Likes
What is the process for a lawyer having their law license revoked? Do these actions reach that level?
3 Likes
So much for the presumption of regularity. You can’t trust these GOP goons to do anything right.
Isn’t Micklenburg working for a US Senator now?
2 Likes
Vouching, the Trump-brand of evidence…
“Trust me, these are some bad hombres. You wouldn’t believe the things these guys did. Just the absolute worst. Take my word for it; so nasty.”
15 Likes
Mecklenburg replied: “I’m feeling the skepticism already,” before asking: “are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth.”
It calls to my mind:
10 Likes
Somebody makes a complaint to the state bar or applicable committee, or a judge makes a referral to same, in which they ask for an investigation and resulting professional punishment.
The deck is usually stacked against serious discipline, especially disbarment or even suspension, but we’ve seen some of the 2020 MAGA liars eventually getting disbarred. And pulling this blatantly political shit in a deep blue state with a correspondingly deep blue state bar is incredibly reckless.
16 Likes
Was detailed by DOJ to the minority on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Canned immediately upon the disclosure of what she did here, back a couple weeks ago.
(“Canned” in the sense that the Senate sent her back to DOJ, where she is undoubtedly still in some no-show witness protection program position.)
19 Likes
What term is shorthand for the Trump DOJ and a Grand Jury? Cluster Fuque.
4 Likes
One grand juror wondered why not indict the ICE guy driving the car? Another asked why he couldn’t just stop to avoid running over someone, and was told he feared the protesters would break the windows and drag him out. Which isn’t something that happens a lot, except ICE does it routinely when they stop a car.
19 Likes
Not having served on a grand jury, I don’t know the answer to this, but how aware would jurors be as to how the prosecutor has to handle himself/herself? Would they receive enough instruction from a judge or assigned reading to recognize the irregularities here?
9 Likes
0.00~%
9 Likes
Sadly by the time the wreckage of this (mis) administration is sifted through by future Courts and a DOJ that no longer acts like the Presidents private law firm a h*lluva a lot of lawyers, Politicians and innocent citizens will be hurt.
Millions of dollars in unnecessary legal fee’s spent defending against bogus criminal charges. Lawyers who spent years getting their professional credentials willing to risk disbarment if not prison to further the Orange POS unquenchable thirst for revenge. And even worse is the poisoning of institutions (Supreme Court, DOJ, NIS, etc.) that we once held as sacred.
Putin is laughing his a$$ off right now. He manage to defeat the United States without firing a shot.
14 Likes
Thanks for this. Hee Hee Hee
3 Likes
I believe it. My evidence? Circumstantial of course. Trump? By his works ye shall know him (and who’s whispering in his ear). We may never know for sure, but I’ve no doubt trump is a Russian asset.
3 Likes
Good god, how I’ve come to hate the word “allegedly”.
5 Likes
She was working for Dick Durbin I believe but has been dismissed in the wake of these revelations the past few weeks
4 Likes
Usage note: in MAGAlish, the word hombres is pronounced hom-bers.
3 Likes
Have been on a (state) grand jury. Instruction was minimal and there was nothing about what the prosecutor could or could not do. What we were told was that:
- it was our job to decide if the prosecutor had presented enough evidence to justify taking the case to trial.
- We were also told twelve ways from Sunday that this shit is secret, and we were bound by oath to keep their secrets.
That’s why vouching is flagrant misconduct: it amounts to the prosecutor saying, “I’ve got all kinds of evidence I can’t show you. Trust me.” The idea that there is evidence the grand jury can’t see is preposterous: under ordinary circumstances the grand jury proceedings are deep secrets. But in criminal discovery every bit of evidence the prosecution has is supposed to be disclosed to the defendant. The only reason for the deep secrecy is to protect defendants when the grand jury declines to indict. In the interest of saving time, I can understand abridging the evidence to the grand jury when the evidence is overwhelming. But if the prosecutor has a shaky case, she ought to present everything she’s got and let the grand jury decide whether she can go to trial or not.
9 Likes