Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
3. I eventually got them to the right decision. But I could have made them go any way I wanted them to go.
|
Entirely predictable, and why I'm surprised both sides were willing to take that gamble.
Just after starting at my old BigLaw gig, I got called to serve on the DC grand jury. Three weeks of daily service, more or less precluding doing much actual work, but hey, I got paid.
I wasn't exerting any similar influence, nor did I want to, but it was definitely eye-opening about how much people make decisions based on intuition rather than analysis. Given the super-low bar and one-sided nature of the evidence offered, it was close to a rubber stamp.
Except for when the prosecutor was seeking indictment for (1) possession with intent to distribute, (2) possession of a firearm, and (3) possession of a firearm during a crime of violence or other serious offense.
No problem indicting on the first two, but the prosecutor had to come back twice to explain how possession with intent to distribute was an "other serious offense" and a statutory predicate to #3, which the grand jury wasn't buying. To some degree it was her fault for not stressing that point enough the first time, but nonetheless, we indicted on all of the elements of #3, but not that charge because they didn't think it was a crime of violence.
Nonetheless, people showed up and took it pretty seriously.
