I have been wondering about the Grand Jurors in the CIA Leak investigation. I mean, we constantly hear about Fitzgerald, but there are also 23 other people in that room with him as well. Are they sequestered? No. Each of them can go home at night and do whatever it is that they do. What if they read BooTrib or DailyKos or The Next Hoorah on occasion? What if they came across information related to the case they are involved in? Can they do anything about it?
Yes.
According to what I have read in the Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors, these Jurors have a considerable amount of power. See the bolded part of the snip from the Handbook:
Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors
As stated above, the federal grand jury’s function is to determine whether a person shall betried for a serious federal crime alleged to have been committed within the district where it sits.Matters may be brought to its attention in three ways: (1) by the United States Attorney or anAssistant United States Attorney; (2) by the court that impaneled it; and (3) from the personal knowledge of a member of the grand jury or from matters properly brought to a member’s personal attention. In all these cases, the grand jury must hear evidence before taking action.
But do they check out the internet in their spare time? Let’s hope so… Why? Because of this:
Ordinarily, the attorney for the government questions the witness first, followed next by the foreperson of the grand jury. Then, the other members of the grand jury may question the witness.
This could also help to explain why Mr. Rove spent over four hours with the Grand Jury yesterday. Remember what Matt Cooper said about his appearance before the Grand Jury in What I Told the Grand Jury:
A grand jury, the old maxim goes, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them. But I didn’t get that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the demographics of the District of Columbia. The majority were African American and were disproportionately women. Most sat in black vinyl chairs with little desks in rows that were slightly elevated, as if it were a shabby classroom at a rundown college. A kindly African-American forewoman swore me in, and when I had to leave the room to consult with my attorneys, I asked her permission to be excused, not the prosecutor’s, as is the custom. These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2 1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor’s, although he posed them on their behalf. I began to take notes but then was told I had to stop, so I’m reliant on memory.
Other snips from the Handbook I found interesting (all bolding mine):
As a result, a grand jury is able to vote an indictment or refuse to do so, as it deems proper, without regard to the recommendations of judge, prosecutor, or any other person.
The United States Attorney must sign the indictment before one may be prosecuted. Thus, the government and the grand jury act as checks upon each other. This assures that neither may arbitrarily wield the awesome power to indict a person of a crime.
Occasionally, prior to answering a question, a witness may ask to leave the grand jury room to consult with his or her attorney. The grand jury is to draw no adverse inference from such conduct, for every witness has the right to confer with counsel even though counsel may not be present in the grand jury room. In fact, a witness may confer with counsel after each question, as long as he or she does not make a mockery of the proceedings or does not, by such, make an attempt to impede the orderly progress of the grand jury investigation.
This could be another reason it took Rove so long, perhaps he was constantly leaving the room to consult with Luskin!
Upon request, preferably in writing, an accused may be given the opportunity by the grand jury to appear before it…
…Even if the accused is willing to testify voluntarily, it is recommended that he or she first be warned of the right not to testify. Also, he or she may be required to sign a formal waiver of this right. The grand jury should be completely satisfied that the accused fully understands what he or she is doing.
Sounds like Rove is an “accused” to me…
Remember that the grand jury is not responsible for determining whether the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but only whether there is sufficient evidence of probable cause to justify bringing the accused to trial. Only the evidence presented to the grand jury in the grand jury room may be considered in determining whether to vote an indictment.
…but even attorneys for the government may not be informed of what took place during the grand jury’s deliberations and voting.
After reading all of this I have two thoughts:
- I PRAY that these Grand Jurors understand what’s really going on with the Bush administration so they can ask the right questions in a very complicated case.
- I would give my right arm to be a Grand Juror in this case!
me 2!!!!!!!! I would give my eye teeth to be there, even as a fly on the wall…
Thanks for your diary.
You’re quite welcome! Have a 4!
that Katrina and the mishandling by the Bush Administration would probably not help defendants in this case (I believe it was specifically referring to Rove and any sort of “I didn’t know” or “I can’t remember”-type defense.)
If 2% polls can be used to illustrate a feeling of disatisfaction with this Administration, with factual disproportinate numbers of African Americans hit with unemployment, imprisonment, poverty, representation in the Armed Services and all the screwovers our soldiers are receiving, I can’t believe it has been a very good year for Bush-Cheney ’04. Not with any grand jury, but particularly this one and with Fitzgerald, who by all accounts goes for the top and takes his time to make his cases stick.
–I had thought that the GJ had a lot more leway in asking questions, etc. and had posted some thoughts on that in the comments of one of last nights diaries. I also asked anyone to correct me if I was wrong.
I’ve been on a federal grand jury. It was an interesting experience — we DID have a political corruption case, among others (we were a special grand jury, we sat for 18 months, so got a number of cases), that was significant in state politics. We spent several months on that one, and did return an indictment. (IIRC, the final result was that a plea bargain of some kind ensued rather than a trial, but that was ONE corrupt city politician whose ambitions were stopped cold.)
Yes, jurors DO ask questions of their own. They can ask for certain witnesses to be subpoenaed. They work with the state’s attorney, but they can also take initiative, and the prosecuter’s office will accommodate them. It all depends on the individuals on the jury — that gestault of personalities, experiences, knowledges, and points of view. We had a very broad cross-section of interesting people, and everyone took the responsibility very seriously.
We did have one witness who asked to speak with his attorney after every question. Annoying (probably annoying on purpose), but he could do that. (We had some pretty snotty witnesses sometimes. However, it doesn’t do well for your case to annoy a grand jury. Just makes them wonder what you’re hiding.) We talked to FBI agents (that was interesting. Had no idea what all the FBI could do back then), to put their observations on the court record. We were able to look at whatever evidence was subpoenaed, from phone records to personal calendars to bank statements to the contents of someone’s car. We could ask any questions and the state’s attorney’s office would try to get answers for us.
We also had some screwball moments. Like the one old guy who insisted on asking a witness (someone’s mistress) if she went to church, and if she thought sleeping with someone she wasn’t married to was morally wrong. (We told him later that was irrelevant and out of line.)
But over all, it was a very fascinating experience, and I came away with a high opinion of the state’s attorney’s office, and the justice system in this instance. The grand jury was a group of people chosen at random all trying to do their best job as citizens, and I think we did pretty well.
So it’s just a question of wait and see what comes out of the grand jury. I’m inclined to put a lot more faith in 23 citizen jurors looking at all the available evidence in this matter than in a lot of Democrat politicians right now.
They’ll come out with something, whatever that is. Wait and see.
Something I’ve been wondering about–are the grand jurors chosen in the same way as the jurors for a trial, except that there is no chance for the defense (since there technically isn’t one, as no one has been indicted yet) to object to the use of a juror?
n/t