Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_jedk4ep wrote

[deleted]

16

Zagrycha t1_jedkk7g wrote

yeah you could theoretically be called for grand jury duty. You may look into regular jury duty selection if curious since it'll answer your question-- basically lots and lots of lawyers questioning jury people and dismissing those they think are too biased etc until they have the right amount of people.

17

Welpe t1_jedqpll wrote

Grand Jury is definitely more interesting than normal jury duty, I’ll say that. Potentially way more traumatic though. Though for cases like this it wouldn’t be a normal grand jury, who are usually empaneled to a good amount of cases over a week, two week, sometimes multiple months in certain jurisdiction. I’m pretty sure for something this big the grand jury was only empaneled for this specifically.

Note that for grand juries the person being accused doesn’t get representation, nor is there a judge. The DA leads the proceedings. That’s why you hear things like “You could indict a ham sandwich”. Generally speaking, a committed DA can close to always get an indictment. Though with cases like this with major political ramifications I doubt there was much bias involved. Getting the indictment only for him to be found not guilty at trial because you overplayed your hand could be career ending. They honestly do want insight into how a jury will see the evidence, what questions they have about it, etc. It would be profoundly foolish to waste the opportunity on just getting an indictment with weak evidence.

8

Zagrycha t1_jeferkv wrote

I agree that the reason grand jury has such a high indictment rare is definitely related to the fact they probably won't call for grand jury without evidence to cause a high indictment rate.

2

Apollyom t1_jedrl2m wrote

The Thing about grand jury's are that they are given almost unlimited investigative power, via the ability to subpoena people and things.

3