PBP: Free Jim Comey! Free Tish James!

So many lay people struggle to understand this dynamic and seem to think it means the Judge is biased.

 

i think it's most likely Halligan misled the GJ by selectively introducing evidence and failing to produce the exculpatory stuff.

 

Yes. But I think in this case Preet is suggesting that the Halligan has selectively shown evidence and withheld exculpatory info so as to manufacture probable cause - in a situation where DOJ not only knows, but also believes the standard for prosecution is not met.

IMO this is different to showing the GJ the best version of your case without the D version and could rise to the kind of thing she ought to be struck off for as you alluded to above. At some point you are actively misleading the GJ into a false indictment,

 

I think we will find she has actually lied. If you hold the evidence that shows Comey actually didn't commit the crime alleged, and your own DOJ prosecutors think the indictment can't succeed, but then you bring it in bad faith, I think you are doing more than simply omitting the defendant's best evidence. As Yoss says, you are allowed to bring your best case, but you are not allowed to bring a fake indictment based on blatant misrepresentations.

Discovery is where all this will come out, as IIRC the GJ materials are all discoverable.

Joyce and Preet argue that Comey may well take the unusual step of digging into the GJ process to show to the judge this is a bad faith prosecution that ought to be dismissed. e.g If you could show Halligan knowingly misrepresented Comey's conduct to the jury, then that helps you with your argument that it's a malicious prosecution.

 

Agreed - that is the difference.

 

The wording of the standards differ by jurisdiction but in general you need the low PC standard to get the arrest warrant but you'll need to meet some version of a case to answer test to get through a prelim. So that means in general you don't indict people unless you think you have at least a better than even chance of convicting at trial.

I agree you can likely get away with indicting people on flimsy cases, but you do have to be very careful or you can end up facing a gigantic civil claim - not that this DOJ would care

I think in this case, misfeasance in the GJ phase more goes to getting the case tossed because it would highlight that the prosecutor themselves was acting for ulterior purpose.

 

i think you can sue the individual officers but not in their personal capacity

Barry Morphew recently sued the FBI as well as state agencies for what he alleged was a indictment based on evidence 'fabricated' by the FBI agents

 

I am not sure why you are lay 'splaining this to me.

These types of process start either with arrest affidavit or grand jury depending on jurisdiction. But it doesn't make sense to indict without holding enough of a hand that looks like it will succeed at trial. One big reason is the existence of preliminary hearings where you have to show case to answer. So all around the world e.g the Crown Prosecution Service - the prosecutor does not indict unless they are confident of conviction. It's not just DOJ policy - it's basically how everyone does it, including state prosecutors

AFAIK, the federal criminal jurisdiction does not have a prelim, but according to Joyce, the Court still has inherent jurisdiction to dismiss if the indictment does not indicate a crime on it's face.

That is why evidence of arsejapery in front of the GJ could be critical - because it looks like there can not possibly be a crime that could go to a jury here, unless the government has something we don't know about.

 

This is what happened in Morphew's scam-suit

Luckily the whole thing went off to die in a gutter after his wife's body turned up in a shallow grave and now he has been re-indicted - by grand jury FTW.

It was part of an 'innocence fraud' effort by a particularly unethical defence attorney in colorado. In general what you do is claim you've been framed, and then if you can get off, sue the state/feds for millions - of course hoping to settle it.

Alan Jackson is in the process of doing this in Boston for his most innocent client ever Karen Read.

 

Things will become clearer soon we hope (unless DOJ simply fails to provide discovery on time - another strong possibility IMO).

This jurisdiction has the rocket docket, and Joyce felt it will probably go to trial very early next year. This isn't one where DOJ can spin it out for 2 years.

In Preet's opinion, the statement "i stand by my previous testimony" in response to a question by Cruz about McCabe, cannot possibly support this indictment.

So either Halligan has misled the GJ, or she has some secret evidence no one knows about.