At today's Manhattan Grand Jury meeting: What happened
I have served on multiple grand juries. For some reason I get those summons rather than regular petit jury summons. Grand juries work a certain way, which is not all that complicated, actually.
When you're a grand jury member you're told your job clearly and in no uncertain terms: You will review evidence presented by the District Attorney's staff, and, based on that evidence, you will make a determination whether to issue an indictment, and if so, which charges will be included in that indictment.
You are told that it is YOUR decision, but since the law is complex, you will have assistance as needed from the DA staff. There's a big law book in front of you, containing the various statutes under which you might indict the target. The lead attorney from the DA's office may suggest which charges the evidence relates to, but you, the jury, will decide which, if any of those charges are supported by the evidence, and even whether the evidence presented suggests other charges, not necessarily suggested by the lead attorney.
Then they tell you what pieces of evidence they will be presenting, on what schedule. There is a list, with times, names, etc., each day. Sometimes it changes, they will bring you a replacement showing that Witness D who was scheduled to appear at 2 pm will now appear at 4 pm and other pieces of evidence will be presented at 2 pm. Each piece of evidence is introduced by someone from the DA's staff. They will introduce, for example, an expert who is there to tell the jury why an alarm system malfunctioned, explaining the expert's credentials.
The jury then reviews that particular item of evidence. They may ask questions about it - many questions. If they feel the DA's staff have not proved a chain of custody, for instance, they may request that additional evidence. They will do this over and over again, with every piece of evidence related to the target of the investigation. They will discuss the meaning of each piece, and open those big law books, and sometimes ask for someone from the DA's staff to tell them whether section 103.2, paragraph 9, subparagraph k, means what they think it means, and whether this piece of evidence meets a particular definition in the statute referenced.
All this time, the jury are making notes, which may be collected from them when they leave for the day and returned when they resume the next day. When all the pieces of evidence have been thoroughly reviewed and discussed, the grand jury return (usually with a "summary" from the DA staff) to the list of charges suggested. Then they discuss each one and how the evidence presented supports it - or not. Sometimes one or more jurors will say something like "You (the DA staff) want to charge the target under section 213.4, paragraph 16, subparagraph s, but the evidence relates more closely to the specifics of section 213.4, paragraph 19, subparagraph b. Can we replace that charge?"
The DA staff may explain, clarify, and recommend, but they may NOT tell the grand jury "no" or "yes". At that point, it's in the grand jury's hands, and if the grand jury wants to indict on a charge the DA believes is not as well-supported by the evidence as the charge they initially recommended, they'll have to live with it. Sometimes they'll talk the grand jury into recommending both charges, and dicker the less-supported charge out later in a deal. Sometimes they'll go find more evidence to support it - after all, if the grand jury was convinced, there may be a way to make that case.
Regardless, the final indictment and its list of charges is the work of the grand jury, who have listened to an awful lot of evidence and discussed it in great detail and with reference to the actual, applicable law.
So I can feel pretty confident in betting $100 that what happened today at the Manhattan grand jury hearing is this:
The grand jury was told that Mr. Costello would be presenting evidence.
Mr. Costello was led in and introduced.
Mr. Costello talked, supplied whatever visual aids he may or may not have brought.
The grand jury were asked whether they had any questions for Mr. Costello.
Here's where I speculate: I'm betting the grand jury had either NO questions, or one or two completely inconsequential questions on the order of "how did you know what he intended when he said that?" to which Mr. Costello responded with complete BS.
The grand jury then thanked Mr. Costello politely and told him he could leave.
The grand jury returned to their work, reviewing the next piece of evidence.
Prove it was otherwise and I donate $100 to your favorite candidate's campaign in 2024.
Point being here, that grand jury has seen a metric FUCKTON of pieces of evidence by now, each one carefully explicated by the DA staff, and discussed every one until they needed headache pills. Listening to Costello spew bullshit for a couple of hours was likely the closest thing any of them had to a nap, and I bet those notepads in front of them had plenty little doodles and diddles on them. They want to get on with their work and go home.
And by now, it's pretty clear their work is going to be to return a clean bill of indictment with one or more well-supported felony charges against [Redacted].
And if those jurors are anything like me and the people I've served on grand juries with, they'll want to get home and do anything else, plus a long night's sleep, and any stickybeak trying to get 'inside information' from them will get a metaphorical or perhaps even a literal smack across the chops.
That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it.
stubbornly,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
You have a way with words.
I don't understand why it's left up to the group of non-lawyers, who could really mess it up?
