'LA Grand Juries Are Refusing to Indict ICE Protestors'

[sop]

(TPM) "A major new development out of Los Angeles, where the LA Times reports that U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli has been no-billed by grand juries in some attempted prosecutions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protestors:"

"The three officials who spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity said prosecutors have struggled to get several protest-related cases past grand juries, which need only to find probable cause that a crime has been committed in order to move forward. That is a much lower bar than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard required for a criminal conviction."

"But among the most damning revelations in the LA Times article is Essayli ordering a subordinate to ignore the DOJ’s Justice Manual:"

"On the overheard call, according to the three officials, Essayli, 39, told a subordinate to disregard the federal government’s 'Justice Manual,' which directs prosecutors to bring only cases they can win at trial. Essayli barked that prosecutors should press on and secure indictments as directed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, according to the three officials."

Continued at link:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/la-grand-juries-are-refusing-to-indict-ice-protestors

[SheltieLover]

1. Good!

[Bluetus]

2. It is almost unheard of for a prosecutor to NOT get an indictment

In the GJ, there is nobody in the room to speak for the accused. The GJ literally hears only one side of the story. That is intentional. The theory is that if the GJ hears the best case for prosecution and nothing by way of rebuttal, and is still not convinced of probable cause, then it has no business going to trial.

And the prosecutor only has to convince 12 people on the jury, which can be from 16 to 23. As the saying goes, any competent prosecutor can get an indictment against a refrigerator.