Ray:
Answer this hypothetical question {please}
What is your best guess of what a Grand Jury might do if the Prosecutor has
some evidence, but the evidence is quite thin. I'm talking about the kind of evidence that would not support a conviction
if properly rebutted by defense counsel, but which is in fact real evidence of wrong doing. Admittedly biased witness testimony for example. Remember that the Prosecution in their sole discretion gets to direct how this evidence is presented to the Grand Jury.
What might the Grand Jury do?
The correct answer is that they might indict, they might not. It depends on the nature of the evidence and how it is presented. It is possible (if improper) for a prosecutor to use the Grand Jury to bury a good case. It is also possible for a prosecutor to bring a career ending indictment on a very very bad case. GJ proceedings are absolutely secret, so there is little or no opportunity to second guess the prosecution.
- Jim -
I am not suggesting that the above scenario applies to the DeLay matter. I have no idea what evidence was submitted. I am mad about his pork-spending anyway. Still the fact that more than half of this forum has already convicted him on the basis of a naked Grand Jury indictment is quite telling.
- J -