What happens if the US Attorney hands the Bannon case to the Grand Jury...?

[kentuck]

...and a majority of the Grand Jury returns an indictment?

Does he go straight to jail or can he appeal it?

Is there then a straight jury trial of his peers?

Or is he given a date with a judge for sentencing?

Does anyone know the process from this point?

[Tomconroy]

1. There would be a jury trial on a misdemeanor charge.

[Ocelot II]

2. A grand jury indictment isn't a determination of guilt; it's just a finding

of probable cause that certain specific crimes were committed, sufficient to continue with a prosecution. If the grand jury returns an indictment he would be arrested or would surrender voluntarily and proceed to an arraignment, which is where the charges are presented and his lawyers argue for release on bail. He'd either be kept in jail or released on some kind of bond or house arrest, depending on what the judge decides. After a number of additional procedural steps, which might include plea-bargaining, there would be either a guilty plea or a trial. If he's convicted there is a process for sentencing, and he can appeal both the conviction and the sentence. It won't happen quickly.

[kentuck]

3. Thanks Ocelot.

I suppose the Committee should look elsewhere for information and evidence? Bannon's plan is to delay and distract so the Committee should not rely on his testimony to uncover the truth.

[Hoyt]

4. Assume Bannon would have chance to comply. He'll appear at a hearing and say that he has no

knowledge of anything other than a big "protest" march that had been planned since at least mid-December. He'll say that he was not aware of any plans to storm the Capitol stairs and break into the Capitol.

I suspect Bannon can always claim his knowledge -- and anything he has said on the matter -- is tainted by drugs and alcohol. Anyone looking at him would find that believable.

Hope I'm wrong, but I think Bannon is just another rabbit hole.

[Ocelot II]

5. Bannon is a slippery f*cker and he'll say whatever he needs to say

to get his own mangy, flea-bitten ass off the hook. That probably includes rolling on whoever he thinks could take the fall for him, maybe even including TFG.

[wyn borkins]

7. I Totally Agree With You, Ocelot II

And I also sense that the b-guy is way-smarter than the tf-guy. Now had the two been switched (after-birth), we would all have been phashanistas by now.

[FBaggins]

6. He's unlikely to go to jail for quite some time (if at all)

The alleged crime is a misdemeanor. He wouldn't be locked up awaiting trial. And it could take many months before the trial and appeal process could work itself through to the point of conviction and sentencing (possibly longer than the likely sentence).

And that's if we assume what you have in the OP (that the DOJ will ask the grand jury to indict). Despite what you may have read that doesn't always happen... and DOJ might hold the decision until after privilege claims get resolved.

[getagrip_already]

8. suppose he missed a court hearing by stating he wouldn't appear and then not showing up....

It would be handled much differently. The judge would issue a bench warrant and the person would be held in jail pending whatever court appearance is required. Which could be weeks away.

Judges don't take skipping a court appearance lightly. Even if you are just a witness, and not being personally charged. If you have been subpoenaed to appear and don't, pack your toothbrush.

Why should this be handled by a court any differently?

[LeftInTX]

10. He will show up to court. He's not stupid. He can plead the fifth.

[getagrip_already]

11. true, but not my point.....

The point was that judges have both the power and discretion to jail a person that doesn't show up when subpoenaed, even pre-trial. That is also a misdemeanor. In this case, a judge could simply order him to be held without bail pending trial since he has a history of not showing up.

It's a possible outcome with the right judge. Just because its a misdemeanor doesn't mean it is petty.

Not saying a judge would do this. They should though. A defendant shouldn't be able to break a law and realize the goals they sought by doing so.

And to your point, a defendant is never compelled to testify in court (witnesses are, but bannon won't be a witness if this ever goes to trial). There would be no need to invoke the fifth since he won't be called to testify unless he does so voluntarily.

[LeftInTX]

9. He will get a fine and/or probation

He will show up in court...He has the right to plead the 5th...
Judge has an responsibility to respect Bannon's fourth amendment rights. Which means that Bannon can't be sentenced for anything accept what he is charged with.

This is nothing but a slap on the wrist for Steven Bannon. He can't be compelled to testify.

[getagrip_already]

12. what does pleading the fifth have to do with this?

Had he shown up at the hearing, then that would be his right. Not showing up at all is where he broke the law. In trial, he won't have to testify - that is his right. so the fifth still doesn't apply.

And yes, he will show up in court. But he still has to stand trial. He can still be convicted and sentenced. Just because it is a misdemeanor doesn't mean it is a petty offense. Jails are full of people convicted of them.

It all depends on the judge he draws and what the prosecutors charge him with.

Probation isn't a given, especially if prosecutors want jail time.

[global1]

13. I Don't Get - Why A Grand Jury?....

Bannon ignored and disregarded a congressional subpoena.

Isn't that what this is about? He's being charged with contempt of Congress.

That's pretty obvious. I don't understand why they are convening a 'grand jury' on this.

Does the 'grand jury' have to weigh in on the 'executive privilege' claim here?

He was not working for the government when he had these meetings with Tr**p. And Tr**p is no longer the president.

What gives?

[SoCalDavidS]

14. This Is America, So No Real Consequences

You or I, or most everyone on DU, would likely be arrested though.