newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
Allow me to address a very important and timely issue that, to the best of my knowledge, has been raised by legal commentators and even defense attorneys in the widespread indictment of President Donald Trump and his co-defendants. was not
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in its relevant part, states, “No person shall be held to account for serious crimes or other notorious crimes. Except in grand jury statements or indictments. …” When Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Biden Department of Justice used a grand jury in Washington, D.C. to accuse former President Trump of crimes committed in Florida in a so-called papers case, they apparently gave the wrong venue. what happened using it? Violating certain Department of Justice policies and then hastily moving the case to a grand jury in Florida?
The protections conferred by fair grand jury proceedings date back centuries to the Magna Carta, and were prominently enforced by British and American courts applying Blackstone’s legal theories. The idea of a grand jury indicting Ham Sandwich refers to the grand jury’s usual adoption of evidence presented by prosecutors. It should not abolish any rights deemed important enough to be included in the Bill of Rights. The public and courts need to recognize that these charges were made and made by individual prosecutors and were not the result of deliberations and subsequent decisions by groups of ordinary citizens.
Trump campaign fundraiser has raised $7.1 million since mugshot was taken on Thursday, FOX News confirms
Since the Florida grand jury did not hear the testimony presented to the Washington DC grand jury, what exactly did it hear or see to accuse the former president and other defendants? Was DC’s testimony read to them? What were they instructed about DC’s testimony? Were they asked if they had any questions for the witnesses who testified? Were they instructed about the need to find probable causes for each defendant? did you receive
The customary procedure for clear crimes is simply to present the prosecutor’s drafted indictment to the grand jury for a vote of yes or no. When charges are far more complex than overt crimes, such as so-called document cases, the constitutional right to be prosecuted by a grand jury must demand more. In fact, the DC grand jury met for months, heard dozens of witnesses, and was presumably provided with an enormous amount of “evidence” provided by the government.
Subsequent public records of Florida court proceedings show that the government handed over to the defendants consisted of more than one million documents and nine months of videotapes, all or part of which were filed during the trial. already known to be used.
Add to that the complexity of the law in this matter, the fact that it is a first impression case, the fact that there are numerous legal and constitutional issues related to the use of the Espionage Act against a former president, the Florida grand jury Had it been possible to directly see and hear witnesses and the like, the government would have actually needed to ensure that a Florida grand jury would indict the former president on presumed causes, not the government. Required for each of the approximately 40 counts.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 6) obligate federal grand jurors to maintain confidentiality, but since the indictment was returned, the judge decided that defense counsel would meet with the grand jurors and that all confidentiality obligations would be enforced. exemptions should be allowed. it’s the only way to discover, in front Defendants are compelled to stand trial regardless of whether their Fifth Amendment obligations have been met. And, again, given how Smith used the Washington, D.C. venue and the Washington Grand Jury to conduct a very extensive investigation into issues related almost exclusively to events in Florida, this is a particularly important issue.
In all four cases involving Trump’s indictments, the media repeatedly reported that the president was “indicted by a grand jury.” The real question is whether the grand jury really deliberated or merely acted on the prosecution’s direction. Did the majority vote in favor of indicting all of Trump and his co-defendants for the complex crimes alleged in the indictment, or is this a cover-up for what happened in these secret lawsuits? was it?
Another clear example is the case of Georgia. The indictment is 98 pages long and contains more than 40 charges. Furthermore, in addition to the individual charges, a blanket charge of a grand conspiracy involving up to 19 co-conspirators, including the former president, is also being charged, the so-called RICO charge.
This is a very complex factual and legal prosecution aside from the obvious material weaknesses of this case. And in this case, as in the federal documents case, prosecutors have a lot to answer. Recall that on the day the grand jury met to vote on whether to indict or not, the actual indictment was posted on the official website by the court clerk before the grand jury opened or before the vote took place. please.
Later that day, prosecutor Fanny Willis held a press conference to highlight the fact that the 19 accused defendants were indicted by a nominated citizen of a grand jury, although under Georgia law the grand jury’s support It should have been possible to accuse without . She claimed the indictment was the work of a grand jury, so the question is whether it really was.
From the moment the indictment was posted on the Clerk’s official website that morning, Willis moved at a breakneck pace to obtain the indictment that night.
What happened in the grand jury room? What kind of deliberations were held? Again, the question is presumed cause and whether the defendant’s due process rights have been curtailed.
In Georgia, grand jurors are free to speak publicly. In a previous investigative grand jury, we have seen the presiding judge appear on television after the trial was over and never stop talking to the grand jurors about what happened, and the grand jurors gleefully did so. . It shouldn’t be difficult for defense attorneys to figure out what happened.
Trump Attorney Asks Special Counsel Jack Smith to Investigate, Says All Charges Are ‘Theatrical’
In Manhattan, when prosecutor Alvin Bragg formally filed the indictment, he attached the prosecutor’s statements that the media accepted as part of the “grand jury indictment.” It was certainly presented as such. The question is whether the grand jury actually voted for it.
New York State imposes a confidentiality obligation on grand juries, which makes sense while the grand jury is considering criminal charges. The statute prevents disclosure of how prosecutors instructed the grand jury about the law to reveal whether the grand jury actually considered whether there were probable grounds for criminal charges. should it apply? And was Mr. Bragg’s accompanying statement part of the proceedings?
Finally, in a second federal lawsuit that appears to be relevant on Jan. 6, President Trump has not been charged with rioting or sedition, but when Special Counsel Jack Smith made remarks announcing the charges. , nearly half of what he said had nothing to do with the charges. Brought to you by a grand jury. He said in part:
The indictment was issued by a grand jury of residents here in the District of Columbia and details the crimes charged. Please read the full text. The attack on our nation’s capital on January 6, 2021 was an unprecedented attack on the seat of American democracy. It was fueled by lies, as described in the indictment. Defendant’s lies were intended to interfere with the fundamental function of the United States government to collect, tabulate, and certify presidential election results. The law enforcement men and women who defended the Capitol on January 6th are heroes. They are patriots and the best of us. They didn’t just protect the buildings and the people sheltering in them. They risk their lives to protect us as a country and as a people. They defended the very institutions and principles that define America.
Again, this is a broad public denunciation of the former president, in which Smith nearly accuses the former president of rioting and sedition, for which he has not been charged. In fact, the charge is based on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, post-Enron laws, and the Financial Fraud Act, which is used primarily by contractors and others to defraud the federal government.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONS
What exactly was the information presented to the grand jury and what did Smith tell the grand jury when prompted to indict the former president? Did they use the arguments about rebellion and sedition to convince them to vote yes? This is the point. Mr. Smith appears to have played lightly on law and fact, failing to meet the requirements of a prosecution meeting the probable cause criteria.
The grand jury process is intended to protect an individual’s due process rights. Indictments are to be filed by members of the public sitting as jurors. The government provides jurors with witnesses, information, and explanations of relevant laws so that jurors can make decisions based on true, accurate, and honest statements. If this process is violated by politically motivated prosecutors like Bragg and Willis, or by prosecutors like Smith who have a long history of misusing the criminal justice system, the It is particularly important that Article 5 is not abused, violated or exploited. As a stick by the government aimed at imprisoning targets, not to protect individuals.
Notably, all three prosecutors slammed grand jury votes in the heat of the presidential election, and all are demanding trials within months of indictment — maximizing political damage to Trump. and to maximize political gains for candidate Trump. Biden candidate.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
If there is clear evidence of misconduct by these prosecutors, the use of these grand juries must be scrutinized at the forefront of these various cases. So my question is, where are the attorneys representing President Trump and the other defendants? Why do they seem so reluctant in the face of potential grand jury abuse and, frankly, other government misconduct?
This fork in the process is very important. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that, at least at the federal level, a defendant loses any right to challenge the grand jury process once the indictment goes to trial.