(11-18-2021 12:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Stink... grand jury is a whole different ballgame.

First, only one side typically presents.
Second, the standard to 'proceed' is way lower than to convict.
Third, no judge on determining what is allowed to the GJ, the 'conductor' of the thing is the DA themself.

The other thing I have learned is that a jury trial is *not* about the law. A trial is simply who can appeal to the emotions of the jurors the best with the facts.

The game plan for a trial is always:
1. 'stoke the emotions of the jury *for* your client, and *against* your opponent'
2. give them a single reason to vote against your opponent.

But, the judge is the traffic cop --- he applies on what you can say, and how you say it. And a good judge will do so in order to never during trial do anything that a jury can take as a positive or negative with respect to a party, or or to the attorneys.

Case in point: last week Schroeder went ballistic on the DAs over the 5th amendment issue and the issue where they started asking on subjects he had excluded. But, he cleared the jury from the courtroom before he smacked down on them -- he did not want to influence the jury against them.

GJ is the above, but without a traffic cop.

I sat on a federal grand jury for 24 mos (ten years ago).
It is almost impossible to get a "No Bill".
Only the D.A. presents info, and I don't remember exactly but I think you need a majority against for it not to be a "True Bill". The most we ever had was 6-8 out of 23.