Michael Smith

People ask me what we can do to get prosecutors under control and why there isn't a mechanism to stop them from bringing dubious charges.

There is a mechanism.

It's the grand jury. The grand jury is supposed to act as an investigative body, separate and apart from the prosecution, asking questions, demanding more evidence and generally deciding if a charge is to be brought and if the charge the prosecutor proposes is appropriate.

And that means the prosecution, since there is no defense present, has a duty and responsibility to present any exculpatory evidence or reason the alleged offender could be considered not worthy of indictment.

Such a role is noted in the 1992 SCOTUS case of United States v. Williams, than grand juries has the responsibility to act as a buffer between the Government and the people, providing a check on governmental power. In this case, the prosecution DID NOT present exculpatory evidence that would have negated the indictment the grand jury handed up.

It would be interesting to know how much "deliberation" the grand juries did in the various Trump cases but the process is secret, so I guess we will never know just how much of a rubber stamp these juries were.

Remember, the goal of a prosecutor is to get an indictment, nothing less.

I'm pretty confident that in the Bragg and Willis cases, these were a few slices of bread short of a ham sandwich, most of Jack Smith's as well. I'm pretty sure Bragg, Willis, and Smith have gone out of their way to hide from the jurors that their radical legal theories are just that - radical - and the presiding judge is simply not doing their job.

This system has been broken for a long time. Since this is not an adversarial process, prosecutors can lead these jurors by the nose to wherever they want them to go. Jurors need to understand that they are in charge, not the prosecutor or presiding judge.

It seems the prosecutors in these cases have checked leftie Twitter/X and chosen from that jury pool. Just remember Emily Kohrs, the grand jury foreperson in the Georgia RICO case...

One of the 'random people' chosen to investigate Trump goes public | CNN Politics
cnn.com

Tim adds:

I was called to Grand Jury duty once. I got off easily; my boss just wrote a letter saying I could not be spared for the six months you are on the jury. Sooo....only those who are unemployed can do it.

That means welfare recipients, those who make their living from less than honest means, and retirees. Only the last would make decent grand jurors, but even they have a vested interest in a political prosecution like this.

And I suspect most jurors are not too concerned with handing down an indictment or twelve; they figure the ultimate decision will be with the actual jury so it's no skin off their noses.

There should be some sort of legal accountability for the prosecutor and the jury. If the jury issues a bad indictment maybe the jurors would have to pay some sort of fine, or do community service? And if it is the prosecutor who doesn't provide exculpatory evidence he should likewise be punished. Personally I'd like to see him in stocks and have rotten tomatoes thrown at his face, but perhaps that's just me.

At any rate there is no accountability, which makes it perfect for the politicization we see now. George Sors knew what he was doing when he started his Prosecuting Attorneys Projec t.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 4 kb.