Uh oh. The jury must be UNANIMOUS!

[Kablooie]

It seems that even if Fitzgerald had water tight evidence he still needs 23 jurors to unanimously decide in a closed door session that there is enough evidence to indict.

If there is just one crazy christian bush follower there might be NO indictments.

"The grand jury, whose term expires Friday, is scheduled for a session today. Before a vote on an indictment, prosecutors typically leave the room so jurors can deliberate in private, and ask that the jury alert them when it has reached a decision.

Unlike the jury in a criminal trial, grand jurors are not weighing proof of guilt or innocence. They must decide whether there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime, and they must agree unanimously to indict. The prosecutor could seek to seal any indictments until he announces the charges."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102502037_pf.html

So there in no slam dunk assured.

Gads.

----------

UPDATE:
It seems the post got it wrong. Check the messages below.
WHEW!

[Kenroy]

1. Huh?

I read an article yesterday that said he only needs a majority of the jury to vote to indict.

[Kablooie]

3. I just read in the Washington post that it must be unanimous.

[Maddy McCall]

5. link?

[writes2000]

20. Here's a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102502037_pf.html

[shockingelk]

24. here's the text

nlike the jury in a criminal trial, grand jurors are not weighing proof of guilt or innocence. They must decide whether there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime, and they must agree unanimously to indict.

[Maddy McCall]

31. Someone needs to email those two in the by-line and tell them...

that they are wrong.

[wookie294]

7. That can't be true

I heard only 12 of the jurors need to agree to indictments.

[Toots]

70. I think they meant a unanimous decision by the majority

There can be more than twelve I believe but a quorum must be met before the jury can make any decisions and that quorum is twelve.

[writes2000]

15. I read the same article. Seems off to me.

[hiaasenrocks]

27. Well, they're wrong.

The Federal Grand Jury rules are established.

A majority returns a "true bill" and the indictment is issued.

[blitzen]

2. gotta be BS.... n/t

[Maddy McCall]

4. No. it only requires a majority.

[kurth]

6. Incorrect info

The federal grand jury system requires a vote of 12 grand jurors, out of a pool of 16-23 members, to indict.

[napi21]

8. O that's not true. He has to have a quorum, which is 12

of the 23 jurors that sit on the GJ. Of the 12 he ust have a majority.

I don't know where you heard this unamious vote, but it's BS.

[hiaasenrocks]

9. Wrong.

If a majority of the grand jurors vote for an indictment then they return a "true bill."

The indictment is issued.

[tuvor]

10. Clinton was indicted, right? (Asked the ignorant Canadian)

Was it unanimous then?

With 25 people having to agree, I doubt much'd ever get done.

[Maddy McCall]

14. No, I don't believe that Clinton was indicted.

Impeached? yes. Indicted? no.

[hiaasenrocks]

17. No, he wasn't. n/t

[kestrel91316]

19. Clinto WAS NEVER INDICTED for a crime. He WAS sued in a

CIVIL case. Apples and oranges.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

71. Wrong. Impeachment is the functional equivalent of being charged.

Furthermore, he was tried (by the Senate). He was acquitted.

[kestrel91316]

73. Indictment for a crime in the criminal court system is NOT the same

thing as impeachment by Congress.

Clinton was NOT indicted.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Clinton was never indicted for anything

n/t

[buddysmellgood]

36. Because a blowjob isn't treason. It's not going to make points with your

spouse, but it doesn't endanger anyone's life.

[Catherine Vincent]

11. Most of them are black and I hope they get those Bush bastards!

The thing is, Fritz has to be very persuasive, I know he will.

[JimmyJazz]

16. WTF does being black have to do wtih being able to

analyze and weigh evidence? Seriously. Since when do black people automatically see the "Democrat's" point of view on a subject?

[writes2000]

30. Agreed. While it's likely that many of them are not Republicans...

I'd like to believe that they will be making their decision based on the evidence alone.

[readmoreoften]

32. Considering that Bush only has 2% of the African-American vote

in the most recent poll, I think African-Americans are doing a fine job of analyzing the world around them.

[JimmyJazz]

38. But the poster seems to be saying that because they are black,

they will automatically indict. That's hardly "weighing" the evidence and not exactly crediting them with "analyzing" it either. That seems to be saying that because they are black, they will automatically vote for an indictment.

[Catherine Vincent]

37. I didn't mean anything by it.

I figure they were probably Democrats.

[JimmyJazz]

40. You mean like Colin Powell and Condi Rice?

:shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

42. No, because the majority of the Blacks are Democrats.

[blonndee]

44. Well, I'm a Democrat and I wouldn't indict a Republican unless

there were evidence, no matter what. So why would a black Democrat be any different from me, a white Democrat?

[hiaasenrocks]

45. She explained herself.

And, more importantly, she apologized.

[JimmyJazz]

46. I think we can take her feet from the fire now.

I think she sees where she may have misspoken. :)

[Maddy McCall]

63. Exactly. God help us if our political persuasion ever determines...

our guilt or innocense.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. So WHAT?!?

They are not to base their decisions on political affiliation, any more than would Republicans. You base a decision to indict on the evidence and the relevant statutes.

[Catherine Vincent]

43. Alright already!

Sorry!

[Marr]

47. 2% support among blacks, and since neither Condoleeza Rice,

Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, or Larry Elder are on the Grand Jury, I assume that leaves no Kool-Aid drinkers unaccounted for.

I think the sentiment (and the concern) was that somehow the Grand Jury might have a fair number of Bush loyalists who would not indict them, regardless of evidence. The fact that there are so many blacks on the GJ makes that seem rather unlikely.

Seems like a harmless observation to me.

[JimmyJazz]

48. That is hardly the point and you know it.

The point is that black, white, red, green or purple, the person should be weighing and analyzing the evidence as presented. Their decision to indict should NOT be based on the fact that they are black and therefore, assumed to be democratically leaning. And we, as a party, should not and can not assume that because they are mostly black, they will vote to indict.

[Marr]

53. I edited my previous post to clarify-

but obviously I agree that jurors should base their decisions on evidence, not politics. I've always said that if there are no indictments, I'll assume it's because they are simply not warranted.

The reason it's worth noting the jury's racial makeup is that it makes it seem less likely that there would be *pro-Bush* jurors there who would not indict, regardless of the evidence.

I want a fair decision- untainted by politics, and IMHO, an all-white jury would be less likely to deliver one. At least, an all-white jury that failed to indict would leave me with lingering doubts as to the jury's impartiality.

[JimmyJazz]

55. I guess maybe it's part of my make-up. Since I do jury analysis for

a living, I really, really hesitate to even mention race in the make up of a jury (it's illegal to exclude a juror based on racs, as I'm sure you know). So, I guess I'm a little sensitive on the subject and will refrain from further comment. Thanks.
:hi:

[Marr]

57. Of course- I appreciate the criticism and the chance to

clarify my point. :D

[hiaasenrocks]

51. That's kind of how I read it.

Some of the responses about what "should" happen in a GJ are correct, but "should" doesn't mean "will." There's also reality. I read her post and thought of the reality, in terms of the political breakdown of the GJ. I think some people decided this was a good way to start a witch-hunt. Seems to have ended now, so that's all I have to say.

[JimmyJazz]

56. Excuse me, but it's certainly not a witch hunt to make someone

accountable for their comments, especially those that are racially charged. Don't accuse me of doing that to someone. I held her accountable, she explained, I backed off. Don't call me a witch hunter. Thank you.

[hiaasenrocks]

58. Did I name you?

The only other post of yours I had read by the time I wrote that was the one where you urged people to back off. No need to be defensive.

I understand people wanting to hold others accountable for statements, but why "especially those that are racially charged"? (italics added)

[JimmyJazz]

59. People need to be held accountable for making racially charged

statements. I was the first one in, so I assumed I was included in your post. I'm NOT going to get into a flame war with you over this issue. I refuse. If you are looking for a fight, look elsewhere. But, feel free to have the last word. I'm going to bed.

[hiaasenrocks]

61. Well, ok.

I don't disagree that people need to be held accountable for statements, including racially charged ones. I just don't think that comments about race are any different, or should be held to a different standard, than any other statement that offends someone personally. It's all bad.

I wasn't looking for a fight. Now who is accusing people of doing something they didn't do? Geez. I asked you a question, and was wondering what your view was...why you said what you said. Why do people throw a fit and accuse others of flaming and run from their own comments?

[Catherine Vincent]

64. I'm going to bed too.

I really didn't mean anything by that comment. I guess I was just hoping they'd be partisan Blacks in spite of all the evidence presented. I just didn't explain myself properly.

Goodnight!:)

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. And yet you keep doing it

Amazing.

What difference would it make if they were, as you delicately put it, "partisan Blacks"? Why hope in that direction?

[Catherine Vincent]

68. Because I would be if I was there.

You guys misunderstood me. But it is my fault for not being more clear.

Good morning!:)

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. Comments about race don't merely "offend people personally"

They offend society generally. Especially our own society, given our historical and current forms of racism.

[Maddy McCall]

62. That was so goddam patronizing I think I'm going to heave.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. What a stupid thing to say

The jury, as any jury, should make their decision based on the evidence presented and the law.

[Maddy McCall]

33. ?!

[napi21]

50. NO!!!! Not BECAUSE the GJ is black! BECAUSE they are guilty!

QUIT pushing this racial junk! I'd say the same damn thing if the GJ was all white and someone said, or gee he might get off because they're all white!

That's BS and you know it!

I hope Fitz convinces the GJ these people are gulity of crimes, and that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with race!

All you do with comments like that is promote racial bias!

[Pepper32]

74. Wow, this piece of the thread is very interesting

:popcorn:

Cat_girl, I hope they didn't leave any bruises. :hi:

Geez, talk about overreacting.

Pepper

[Fridays Child]

12. Maddy is right: 12 of the 23 jurors must agree to indict...

...if I recall correctly.

[deadparrot]

13. Debunked:

Indicting: Grand juries hear evidence presented by a prosecutor and decide whether it creates probable cause to believe that specific persons have committed crimes. Prosecutors usually submit a statement of proposed charges known as an "indictment" to a grand jury. The prosecutor leaves the jurors alone and they decide if the evidence gives them probable cause to believe the people named in the indictment are guilty of the crimes it charges them with. If a majority of the jurors vote for the indictment, it is "returned" and initiates a criminal case against the people it names as defendants.

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/funcsgj.htm

[Nevilledog]

18. Only need a majority of the grand jurors present at time of vote...

The only jury whose decision must be unanimous is one for a criminal conviction. You must remember that an indictment is a finding of probable cause... not guilt. A prosecutor need only convince the Grand Jury that more likely than not a crime was committed and more likely than not it was committed by the person named in the investigation. Also, the vote need only be a majority of the jurors present at the time of the request for consideration of charges.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. That's not true

The Washington Post made a mistake there. The jury requires a simple majority to indict.

[Lex]

26. The Washington Post and the New York Times are really sucky

aren't they?

Don't they EVER fact check, or Google ANYthing?

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. I pointed out this error when I read the paper earlier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1877627

In fact, the claim doesn't even make sense within the context of the paragraph:

"Unlike the jury in a criminal trial, grand jurors are not weighing proof of guilt or innocence. They decide whether there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime, and they must agree unanimously to indict. The prosecutor could seek to seal any indictments until he announces the charges."

The logic of the paragraph implies that the second sentence will show a CONTRAST to criminal trial juries, which must be unanimous. It says, "Unlike X, Y works in these two ways, called a) and b)." But b) in this case (unanimous decision) works like X. The paragraph is so incoherent that you wonder how the writers and editors could miss such a blatant error...

[Spazito]

22. That's incorrect

Only 12 of the 23 grand jurors have to vote for an indictment, or if only a bare quarum is sitting, 12 of the 16 members are needed to vote for an indictment.

http://www.moed.uscourts.gov/Jury/FederalHandbookForGrandJurors.pdf

Edited to correct spelling error

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Nope -- all that's needed is a majority.

A federal grand jury consists of 23 people; at least 16 must be present for a quorum. 12 must vote in favor of indictment for the indictment to issue. Here are the rules for grand juries: http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/pdf/grandjur.pdf

[RoyGBiv]

28. This is not correct ...

Federal grand juries require 12 votes to return a true bill, or decision to indict. Any less than that returns a no-bill. Prosecutors can take no bills as an indication they need to present more evidence and will do so with the same jury to try to get the indictment. The reason this matters is that prosecutors tend to present the least amount of evidence possible to secure a majority vote so as not to reveal too much of the case they plan to present in court once the indictment is secured.

[Skittles]

34. thanks Roy

I am not in the know but unanimous for 23 sounded ridiculous

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Perhaps the numbnuts at the Post don't know that 23 people

sit on federal grand juries. If they think grand juries have only twelve jurors, then they assumed that the 12 juror rule translated to a unanimous decision. In any case, it's piss poor journalism and not worthy of the Washington Post. It's atrocious misinformation at a crucial time, and it misleads readers about the threshhold for indictment. From the right's perspective, this misinformation is just as damaging, if indictments come down.

[RoyGBiv]

54. That's entirely possible ...

The inability/unwillingness of editors and so-called journalists to do even a minimum of fact-checking is so common, it's hardly a surprise any more. But this comes close.

You'd think *they* might pick up a newspaper now and again. It wasn't all that long ago that another little scandal resulted in a "unanimous" vote from the grand jury for indictment, and this was in fact reported as an unusual thing, particularly among such a diverse group of jurors, that indicated the strength of the case.

[bhunt70]

49. wow, did everyone post the same answer at once?

[flowomo]

52. I e-mailed the author of the article.... (Leonnig)

and posted a link to this thread. We'll see whether a correction is forthcoming and how long it takes.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

60. Flat out wrong

Citation

Federal grand juries are similar to state grand juries in many ways. For example, the federal grand jury meets in secret and no judge, defendant or criminal defense attorney is present. The U.S. Attorney (federal prosecutor) presents the case to the 16- to 23-person panel that is selected from the community, and a simple majority is all that is required for a federal grand jury indictment, which is prepared by the foreman and delivered to the Federal Magistrate (judge). After a grand jury indictment, a warrant is subsequently issued for the defendant’s arrest, which starts the federal criminal process. The federal criminal process is much different than the state processes and anyone being processed through the federal criminal process needs a criminal defense attorney specializing in federal criminal defense.

http://www.lawinfo.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/143

[Garbo 2004]

65. From Fed Rules of Criminal Procedure:

III Rule 6. The Grand Jury

(a) Summoning a Grand Jury.

(1) In General.

When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned. A grand jury must have 16 to 23 members, and the court must order that enough legally qualified persons be summoned to meet this requirement.

(f) Indictment and Return.

A grand jury may indict only if at least 12 jurors concur. The grand jury -- or its foreperson or deputy foreperson -- must return the indictment to a magistrate judge in open court. If a complaint or information is pending against the defendant and 12 jurors do not concur in the indictment, the foreperson must promptly and in writing report the lack of concurrence to the magistrate judge.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm

Someone really should introduce the illustrious WaPo to Google, at a minimum, if they are going to provide information regarding legal procedures. One imagines Washington DC is not a town without law libraries and legal expertise. Journalism 101. Check your facts and sources. And check again.

[Tennessee Gal]

69. And these people get paid to write incorrect information...

that can easily be checked.

Un-freaking-believable!

:shrug:

[flowomo]

72. WashPo writer has conceded the error and will correct it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5179035&mesg_id=5179035