# Prosecutor's Misconduct Revealed in Grand Jury Transcripts

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 17 Jun 2026, 22 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/332db86b-5e7e-4214-aa1e-b46c003421fd/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Ric Simmons, a professor at Ohio State’s Moritz College of Law, discusses the revelations of prosecutorial misconduct in the grand jury transcripts of a Chicago case against ICE protesters that was dismissed. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:10] Speaker 1: Public criticism of Chicago federal prosecutors reached a tipping point
[0:15] Speaker 1: when the prosecution of four anti ice protesters imploded after
[0:20] Speaker 1: revelations of serious misconduct at the grand jury and an
[0:24] Speaker 1: apparent effort to cover it up. Judge April Perry said
[0:28] Speaker 1: her trust in government attorneys had been broken and indicated
[0:33] Speaker 1: that sanctions against the prosecutor could be appropriate, and now
[0:37] Speaker 1: that the grand jury transcripts have been revealed, the full
[0:41] Speaker 1: extent of the federal prosecutor's misconduct has shocked legal experts
[0:46] Speaker 1: and led to questions about the motivation for bringing the charges.
[0:50] Speaker 1: My guest is Rick Simmons, a professor at Ohio State's
[0:54] Speaker 1: Meritz College of Law. Rick, we heard broadly from the
[0:57] Speaker 1: judge about the misconduct involved in this grand jury proceeding.
[1:02] Speaker 1: What was your reaction though, when you read the actual
[1:05] Speaker 1: transcripts of the proceedings?
[1:08] Speaker 2: To be honest, when I actually read the transcript I
[1:10] Speaker 2: was pretty shocked. I read a lot of the news
[1:12] Speaker 2: articles and what the judges said about the grand jury
[1:15] Speaker 2: and what the conduct was in the grand jury, But
[1:18] Speaker 2: I did not realize the extent of the misconduct by
[1:22] Speaker 2: this prosecutor, So people who have not been in a
[1:25] Speaker 2: grand jury might not understand what the rules there are.
[1:28] Speaker 2: The prosecutor is supposed to essentially to set out the
[1:31] Speaker 2: facts through witnesses and then charge on the law, which
[1:34] Speaker 2: is essentially reading the law to the grand jury. And
[1:38] Speaker 2: that's pretty much. Yet there's not supposed to be an
[1:40] Speaker 2: opening argument, a closing argument, any kind of opinion about
[1:44] Speaker 2: the evidence should say. You can have standard instructions about
[1:48] Speaker 2: you know that they're allowed to make logical inferences, but
[1:50] Speaker 2: she's not to tell them what those inferences should be.
[1:53] Speaker 2: And this prosecutor broke pretty much all those rules. She
[1:57] Speaker 2: had an opening argument or closing argument. She essentially told
[2:01] Speaker 2: the grand juris at least suggested very strongly how the
[2:05] Speaker 2: grand jeur should interpret the evidence here, and none of
[2:08] Speaker 2: that is appropriate in a grand jury setting. So that
[2:11] Speaker 2: the first thing that struck me as the extent of
[2:13] Speaker 2: how much this prosecutor essentially argue the case of the
[2:16] Speaker 2: grand jury, which is not supposed to happen in that context.
[2:18] Speaker 1: And the prosecutor, Sherry Mecklenberg, told the jurors, I know
[2:23] Speaker 1: you and I trust you, and you know me, and
[2:24] Speaker 1: you trust me, and I would never ask you to
[2:27] Speaker 1: chart somebody if I didn't think there was probable cause.
[2:30] Speaker 1: What's wrong with that.
[2:31] Speaker 2: That's the second level of misconduct. So even in a
[2:34] Speaker 2: trial jury, you're not supposed to put your own personal
[2:37] Speaker 2: opinion into the jury's sort of minds about this. So
[2:41] Speaker 2: you're not supposed to personally vouch for a witness or
[2:44] Speaker 2: vouch for a case. The case is supposed to be
[2:46] Speaker 2: about what the evidence shows and what the jury can
[2:48] Speaker 2: conclude from evidence, not ballot they trust one of the
[2:51] Speaker 2: attorneys or not. So you're never supposed to, in a context,
[2:55] Speaker 2: tell the grand jury about your own personal opinion and
[2:57] Speaker 2: how they can trust you about certain things being true.
[3:00] Speaker 2: Any judge would strike that from the record of it
[3:02] Speaker 2: happened in a grand jury or a trial jury. And
[3:04] Speaker 2: then the other level, of course of what happened here
[3:06] Speaker 2: was when she excused or kicked out one of the
[3:09] Speaker 2: grand jurors because he was not willing to go along
[3:13] Speaker 2: with what she wanted. A prostuor does not have the
[3:15] Speaker 2: power to do that. In a grand jury. The grand
[3:17] Speaker 2: jury is a creature of the court. The judge is
[3:20] Speaker 2: the one that impaled the grand jury. Only a judge
[3:23] Speaker 2: crid kicks one off for a misconduct, So that doctor
[3:26] Speaker 2: the prosture did that is also improper in the illegal
[3:30] Speaker 2: So there.
[3:30] Speaker 1: Was a first appearance before the grand jury and they
[3:32] Speaker 1: declined to return an indictment. Then at the second appearance
[3:37] Speaker 1: before the grand jury, that grand jury you were talking
[3:39] Speaker 1: about said, I heard this case last week and I
[3:42] Speaker 1: thought it was a crock up blank then and I
[3:45] Speaker 1: still think it is. And she just dismisses him from
[3:48] Speaker 1: the grand jury. I mean, have you ever heard of
[3:50] Speaker 1: a prosecutor saying to a jury, go away if you're
[3:53] Speaker 1: not going to side with me.
[3:54] Speaker 2: No, I've never heard that before. Now, the prosecutor tried
[3:57] Speaker 2: to make that sound appropriate by saying, well, do you
[4:01] Speaker 2: have an open mind? You don't have an open mind,
[4:02] Speaker 2: you shouldn't be in the jury. And that's true for
[4:05] Speaker 2: trial juries. If when you're bardeering a trial jury, if
[4:08] Speaker 2: someone says they can't have an open mind about the case,
[4:11] Speaker 2: a judge will excuse them from the jury, and so
[4:14] Speaker 2: the bar deer process will take care of that. I've
[4:16] Speaker 2: never heard of that happening before in a grand jury.
[4:18] Speaker 2: And again, the prosecutors that have that power anyway. So
[4:22] Speaker 2: just to be clear, it is legal. It's unusual, but
[4:25] Speaker 2: legal for the prosecutor and the federal system to represent
[4:29] Speaker 2: the case after it's been rejected. You can bring in
[4:32] Speaker 2: new evidence, and you're allowed to do that if you want,
[4:34] Speaker 2: so there is nothing improper about that. But it is
[4:37] Speaker 2: improper to basically the second time around, if grand jurys
[4:40] Speaker 2: say I STI don't think this case is indictable, to say, okay,
[4:43] Speaker 2: we can leave the room then and you're done. That's
[4:45] Speaker 2: simply unprecedent as far as I know.
[4:47] Speaker 1: So then when she presents it a third time, the
[4:50] Speaker 1: time she actually gets the indictment, that's after the US
[4:55] Speaker 1: attorney has addressed all three grand juries.
[5:00] Speaker 2: Right, it's not unusual for the US attorney. That's obviously
[5:02] Speaker 2: that the head attorneys of the whole district to come
[5:05] Speaker 2: in and talk grand juries. When they're in paneled, and
[5:07] Speaker 2: they talked about their role. I suppose it's not improper
[5:10] Speaker 2: necessarily for them to sort of remind them of the
[5:12] Speaker 2: role once in a while. When the US attorney does that,
[5:17] Speaker 2: specifically to a grand jury that has just rejected this
[5:20] Speaker 2: case is about to vote in the case again, it
[5:22] Speaker 2: sends a pretty strong message that the US Attorney doesn't
[5:25] Speaker 2: think they're doing the right thing. So again, what the
[5:29] Speaker 2: US Attorney said, the actual words aren't particularly you know, improper,
[5:35] Speaker 2: and that's something the US tourney might say at the
[5:36] Speaker 2: beginning of a grand jury term. But given the context
[5:39] Speaker 2: of what this grand jury had just done and what
[5:41] Speaker 2: they're about to be us to do, there was a
[5:43] Speaker 2: pretty clear message. I thought. When the US Attorney comes
[5:46] Speaker 2: back to that grand jury in the middle of their
[5:47] Speaker 2: term and gives them this instruction, the US Attorney is
[5:50] Speaker 2: telling them what they should do, which is to indict
[5:54] Speaker 2: this case. So in that context that was also something
[5:57] Speaker 2: that was highly unusual, and.
[6:00] Speaker 1: US Attorney Andrew Boutros ended up revealing the transcript of
[6:05] Speaker 1: what he said to the grand juries that day. Part
[6:08] Speaker 1: of what he said, which I question, is if there's
[6:10] Speaker 1: anyone here who is struggling with a certain type of case,
[6:14] Speaker 1: such as the immigration cases or other cases where they
[6:18] Speaker 1: do not believe that they can set aside their personal emotions,
[6:21] Speaker 1: that they cannot listen and deliberate honestly and objectively, I
[6:24] Speaker 1: would like you to raise your hand and identify yourself,
[6:27] Speaker 1: because we have a different procedure for that. Does that
[6:30] Speaker 1: go too far?
[6:31] Speaker 2: Again, in this context, it does. So when you first
[6:34] Speaker 2: in panel a grand jury, it's appropriate to tell them
[6:36] Speaker 2: they should keep an open minds appropriate to make sure
[6:39] Speaker 2: they know that if they have a certain kind of case,
[6:41] Speaker 2: it's problematic to let them know. And there's the procedure
[6:43] Speaker 2: can go through which would involve a court or a judge,
[6:46] Speaker 2: not just the executive brand US attorney prosctorial body. There
[6:51] Speaker 2: is a procedure at that stage, at the very beginning,
[6:53] Speaker 2: when you're in the middle of hearing cases. That is
[6:56] Speaker 2: not something that you would do because it's setting this
[6:58] Speaker 2: signal about what you want me to do in the
[7:00] Speaker 2: particular case. Also, the grand jury, people should realize grand
[7:03] Speaker 2: jury plays a different role than a trial jury does.
[7:07] Speaker 2: A trial jury is meant to simply hear the evidence
[7:10] Speaker 2: and then vote to convict or not convicts based on
[7:12] Speaker 2: the evidence and the law that's it. A grand jury
[7:14] Speaker 2: is supposed to be more of a screener and not
[7:17] Speaker 2: just a legal screener to show there's probable cause to indict,
[7:20] Speaker 2: but also is supposed to act as a conscience of
[7:22] Speaker 2: community in a sense, they are not required to indict
[7:25] Speaker 2: if there's probable cause, they may indie there's proble cause,
[7:28] Speaker 2: they almost always do. But if for equitable reasons or
[7:31] Speaker 2: any other reasons they believe that they shouldn't indict, they
[7:34] Speaker 2: are perfectly allowed under the law to not indict a case.
[7:37] Speaker 2: And so if they think that immigration cases have gone
[7:40] Speaker 2: too far and that they should indict cases that involved immigration,
[7:43] Speaker 2: or at least cases that are orderligned involving immigration, is
[7:46] Speaker 2: completely their right not to do so. They don't have
[7:48] Speaker 2: to indict when there's probable causes they think that for
[7:51] Speaker 2: exubal reasons, this is not cases should be indicted. So
[7:54] Speaker 2: I think that the US today they're misunderstood or essentially
[7:58] Speaker 2: was not thinking about the actual rod the grand jury.
[8:00] Speaker 2: The grand jury is meant to sort of be a
[8:02] Speaker 2: check on the protorial power, not just legally, but also
[8:05] Speaker 2: again in a more equable sense, to make sure that
[8:08] Speaker 2: the powers not being abused or use in the way
[8:11] Speaker 2: that the community think is inappropriate.
[8:13] Speaker 1: Another thing that the line prosecutor did which I've never
[8:16] Speaker 1: heard of this either, and I don't know how you
[8:18] Speaker 1: think you could get away with it. She admitted that
[8:20] Speaker 1: she had substantive conversations with grand jurors outside the grand
[8:24] Speaker 1: jury room.
[8:25] Speaker 2: Yeah, there's also surprises. She did admit to that, you know,
[8:29] Speaker 2: in the grand jury transcript, and she ad minute to
[8:30] Speaker 2: to judge later. I think everyone knows you're not supposed
[8:33] Speaker 2: to have expart take communications outside of the courtroom or
[8:36] Speaker 2: the grand jury room while the case is proceeding. It
[8:40] Speaker 2: can be awkward, I'll admit. I mean, I've been a
[8:42] Speaker 2: prosecutor and you see a grand juror in the elevator
[8:44] Speaker 2: or a trial during the elevator while the case is proceeding,
[8:47] Speaker 2: it can be awkward. You know, they might want to
[8:49] Speaker 2: talk to you. You have to sort of shake your
[8:50] Speaker 2: head and just say no and move away. They should
[8:53] Speaker 2: know that they can't talk to them, and maybe if
[8:56] Speaker 2: that does happen, then on the record next time you
[8:58] Speaker 2: see them, all say so, so you know, I can't talk
[9:01] Speaker 2: to you outside of this courtroom. That's not permitted. There
[9:04] Speaker 2: are rules that say you're simply never allowed to do that.
[9:07] Speaker 2: So it's something that every trial attorney knows. And so
[9:11] Speaker 2: the idea that that Foster dead to that is also
[9:14] Speaker 2: very very surprising. I'm not sure how much that effected
[9:16] Speaker 2: the case. I don't know the content of the conversation.
[9:18] Speaker 2: But that's the entire point. We don't know the content
[9:20] Speaker 2: of the conversation. It wasn't on the record, and so
[9:23] Speaker 2: it was also inappropriate.
[9:25] Speaker 1: You know, there's one thing after another. When the judge
[9:27] Speaker 1: asked for the transcripts, initially asked for the transcripts, the
[9:32] Speaker 1: prosecutors redacted some of their behavior from the transcripts.
[9:37] Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean so, just again, so people understand, grandeury
[9:41] Speaker 2: proceedings are meant to be confidential, so they're generally not
[9:44] Speaker 2: released to the public, and unless its extraordinary case, but
[9:47] Speaker 2: the judge who umpaneled the grand jury is supposed to
[9:50] Speaker 2: be able to review that grand jury transcript. Now, there
[9:54] Speaker 2: are very few reasons when a judge, you know, would
[9:56] Speaker 2: would find problems with that, right, judge, almost every in
[9:58] Speaker 2: a second guest the problem com determination of a grand jury.
[10:02] Speaker 2: But part of the judge's role is to review that transcript.
[10:06] Speaker 2: And there's no reason I can think of why you
[10:09] Speaker 2: would redact something from the trial judge, if it's being
[10:12] Speaker 2: leased to the public. You know, there's names of confidential
[10:15] Speaker 2: performance in there, or names of an accused who wasn't indicted,
[10:18] Speaker 2: and we have to keep them secret, so they're not
[10:19] Speaker 2: reputations not harmed. I could see that, but this was
[10:23] Speaker 2: just I think the judge of that stage was asking
[10:25] Speaker 2: to review it, you know, in chambers, just by the judge.
[10:29] Speaker 2: So I don't see why that should be redacted. I
[10:31] Speaker 2: think that reaction was I know, another sign the judge
[10:33] Speaker 2: saw that something is not exactly right here about what's
[10:35] Speaker 2: going on? Why are things being hidden from me?
[10:37] Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
[10:40] Speaker 1: this conversation with Professor Rick Simmons of Ohio State's Maritz
[10:45] Speaker 1: College of Law. How the prosecutorial misconduct here moved prosecutors
[10:50] Speaker 1: to dismiss charges against two defendants in a fraud case
[10:54] Speaker 1: where there were similar allegations of misconduct by the prosecutor.
[10:58] Speaker 1: It's also led to defense attorneys to ask for transparency
[11:03] Speaker 1: in other matters handled by her. A Chicago federal prosecutor
[11:09] Speaker 1: went into a grand jury room last fall and told
[11:12] Speaker 1: grand jurors she was sure they had enough to indict
[11:15] Speaker 1: anti ice protesters accused of blocking a federal agent's vehicle.
[11:21] Speaker 1: Assistant US attorney Sherry Mecklenburg told the grand jury in October,
[11:25] Speaker 1: I know you, and I trust you, and you know
[11:28] Speaker 1: me and you trust me, and I would never ask
[11:30] Speaker 1: you to charge somebody if I didn't think there was
[11:33] Speaker 1: probable cause. Federal Judge April Perry later described those statements
[11:38] Speaker 1: as vouching improperly assuring grand jurors about the strength of
[11:42] Speaker 1: the case. That, along with other irregularities including Mecklenburg's abrupt
[11:48] Speaker 1: dismissal of a skeptical grand juror and communications with members
[11:53] Speaker 1: of the grand jury outside the jury room, are detailed
[11:56] Speaker 1: in the grand jury transcripts, which shed light on the
[11:59] Speaker 1: precise seedings that are normally kept secret. I've been talking
[12:03] Speaker 1: to Rick Simmons, a professor at the Meritz College of
[12:06] Speaker 1: Law at Ohio State University. So the Chicago US Attorney's
[12:11] Speaker 1: Office has moved to dismisscharges against two defendants in a
[12:15] Speaker 1: fraud case after a judge call for an evidentiary hearing
[12:20] Speaker 1: to examine similar allegations of misconduct by this prosecutor Mecklenburg,
[12:25] Speaker 1: and a third judge said she'd examine grand jury transcripts
[12:29] Speaker 1: in a case Mecklenburg presented to a grand jury in
[12:33] Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. What about defendants that have been convicted already?
[12:37] Speaker 1: Could they be set free because of prosecutorial misconduct. I mean,
[12:41] Speaker 1: what are the remedies here.
[12:43] Speaker 2: That's an interesting question that the remedy is tougher because
[12:46] Speaker 2: once you have a conviction, so again that the grand
[12:49] Speaker 2: jury is meant to dci that there's probable cause to
[12:51] Speaker 2: move forward, why do you have a conviction? That theory
[12:54] Speaker 2: is you've proven the case be honorable doubt, not just
[12:57] Speaker 2: by probo cause. So it's hard to find to remedy there.
[13:00] Speaker 2: So as a counterexample, if for example, evidence was brought
[13:04] Speaker 2: in that shouldn't have been brought in, or there's a
[13:06] Speaker 2: problem the forensic lab and there was bad evidence coming
[13:08] Speaker 2: out of the forensic lab, and the trial jury heard
[13:10] Speaker 2: all that and convicted, then you could certainly overturn the
[13:13] Speaker 2: convictions because that evidence was tainted. Then the case where
[13:16] Speaker 2: you you know, the trial jury didn't rely in the
[13:19] Speaker 2: grand jury indictment for evidence anyway, So the conviction does
[13:23] Speaker 2: in theory cure that mistake as far as you know,
[13:26] Speaker 2: sanctions being brought against this particular prosecutor, that would be
[13:30] Speaker 2: a reason to look into this as well see if
[13:32] Speaker 2: that that could be a reason. But also moving forward,
[13:35] Speaker 2: I think it shows that the judges now in this
[13:38] Speaker 2: district are going to take hard looks at all the
[13:42] Speaker 2: indictments and all the grand jury proceedings that are happening
[13:45] Speaker 2: to ensure there's no further misconduct that might happen. So
[13:49] Speaker 2: it really does break that trust that federal judges generally
[13:54] Speaker 2: have of US Attorney offices, that they assume there'd be
[13:57] Speaker 2: not just following the law, but also following the norms
[14:00] Speaker 2: and doing things they're appropriate. So I think not only
[14:03] Speaker 2: going backwards, are there going to be some reviews, but
[14:05] Speaker 2: also there's going to be much stronger review of cases
[14:07] Speaker 2: moving forward because because they've lost that trust.
[14:11] Speaker 1: Yeah. So, more than one hundred former prosecutors in Illinois
[14:15] Speaker 1: signed a statement. They raised concerns about what's happening in
[14:19] Speaker 1: the office and the leadership by this US attorney. There
[14:23] Speaker 1: are also some senators that are calling for him to resign.
[14:27] Speaker 1: But he said that there's an increasing lack of trust
[14:30] Speaker 1: from judges, and the judge in this case, Judge Perry,
[14:34] Speaker 1: said she'd lost her faith.
[14:36] Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not surprised by that. I think the Department
[14:39] Speaker 2: Justice in general, I'm sure this office specifically has been
[14:42] Speaker 2: able to do things more efficiently, get better at convictions,
[14:47] Speaker 2: get indictments more easily because there was that trust, because
[14:51] Speaker 2: the again Department Justice had up until recently a very strong,
[14:56] Speaker 2: probably strongest reputation for integrity and for following them rules.
[15:01] Speaker 2: And I think the long term follow of this, I
[15:03] Speaker 2: guess ironically, is that it's going to be much harder
[15:06] Speaker 2: for them to do their job getting a diamonds, getting
[15:08] Speaker 2: convictions because this judge, and I think other judges in
[15:12] Speaker 2: this district and frankly I think around the country are
[15:14] Speaker 2: losing that trust and so that are they're going to
[15:16] Speaker 2: scrutinize the US journey's conduct much more carefully because they
[15:20] Speaker 2: don't have that ability to believe that everything that's been
[15:24] Speaker 2: happening is appropriate.
[15:25] Speaker 1: I mean, federal prosecutors in the Trump administration seem to
[15:29] Speaker 1: be disproving the long held legal theory that a prosecutor
[15:33] Speaker 1: can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
[15:36] Speaker 2: That's right.
[15:37] Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, they are failing to indict juries in
[15:40] Speaker 1: not only Chicago, but DC and LA are failing to indict.
[15:45] Speaker 1: And I'm wondering, you know what you think the cause is.
[15:48] Speaker 1: Is it a lack of trust? Is it the kind
[15:50] Speaker 1: of cases that are being brought like in DC, they
[15:54] Speaker 1: wouldn't indict in the case where six lawmakers made that
[15:58] Speaker 1: video statement about soldiers and having to obeyans that are illegal.
[16:04] Speaker 2: Well, I think there's a few things going. I think
[16:05] Speaker 2: that the lack of trust is the last thing that happened.
[16:08] Speaker 2: I think that lack of trust is now happening because
[16:10] Speaker 2: of these cases are being rejected by grand juries. I
[16:13] Speaker 2: think two primary things are happening. One is case still
[16:16] Speaker 2: being brought which really aren't strong enough to indict, where
[16:20] Speaker 2: there's so much eagerness to indict a case where the
[16:24] Speaker 2: facts aren't really there to indict. That you're seeing grand
[16:27] Speaker 2: juries Loogain saying, actually, I don't think that this is
[16:30] Speaker 2: appropriate based on the law, and also relate to that
[16:34] Speaker 2: cases being brought, at least in many people's opinions, for
[16:38] Speaker 2: political reasons against political opponents, and that's exactly what grand
[16:41] Speaker 2: jury is supposed to do. They're supposed to identify those
[16:44] Speaker 2: cases and question them more severely and then not indict
[16:47] Speaker 2: if it's mostly a political polically motivated prosecution, because politics
[16:52] Speaker 2: should have no part of who gets indicted and who
[16:55] Speaker 2: does it. So once you start bringing cases that are
[16:58] Speaker 2: very very weak and bringing cases for what are pret
[17:00] Speaker 2: evidently political reasons. Then grand juries are going to refuse
[17:05] Speaker 2: to indict. That's going to then lead to a loss
[17:07] Speaker 2: of trust and more and more judges especially, you're going
[17:10] Speaker 2: to be questioning what the Parmer Justice is doing. And
[17:13] Speaker 2: as oppose, the more we see these kinds of cases
[17:16] Speaker 2: in the media, and people in grand juries will also say, okay, well,
[17:19] Speaker 2: I guess we have to think twice about all the
[17:22] Speaker 2: cases being brought to us, and so you might see
[17:24] Speaker 2: again more instances of this happening where they don't indict.
[17:27] Speaker 2: So again, I suppose it's ironic, but by being so aggressive,
[17:30] Speaker 2: by trying to get so many more indictments, actually hurt
[17:33] Speaker 2: them down the road trying to get indictments. I also
[17:35] Speaker 2: want to just say one thing is that in the
[17:37] Speaker 2: Department of Justice, overall the Suriy's offices, they're indicting probably
[17:41] Speaker 2: hundreds or thousands of cases every day, and many of
[17:44] Speaker 2: them are hardworking line prosecutors that are just trying to indict,
[17:49] Speaker 2: you know, people who deserve to be indicted. We're seeing
[17:51] Speaker 2: the high profile cases where there are certain members of
[17:54] Speaker 2: the Parmer Justice that are overreaching. I don't want to
[17:57] Speaker 2: paint the entire Department of Justice all the federal prosecutors
[18:00] Speaker 2: as being overly aggressive and political, but only takes a
[18:03] Speaker 2: few and then the media understandably and correctly starts to
[18:07] Speaker 2: focus on those to have everyone lose face in the
[18:10] Speaker 2: entire system.
[18:11] Speaker 1: I take it it's unusual because prosecutors will usually get
[18:14] Speaker 1: a grand jury to indict. It's unusual to bring the
[18:17] Speaker 1: same case before a grand jury two and three times.
[18:20] Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very unusual. Again, it is legal to bring
[18:23] Speaker 2: the case again to a grand jury. You're allowed to
[18:25] Speaker 2: represent it as many times as you want. But it's
[18:28] Speaker 2: unusual only because, first of all, as you say, the
[18:31] Speaker 2: case should be strong enough the first time. So it's
[18:33] Speaker 2: very unusual not to get indictment the first time. And
[18:35] Speaker 2: if you don't get an indictment, what usually happens you
[18:38] Speaker 2: go back to your supervisor, and the supervisor says, what
[18:41] Speaker 2: went wrong? Why didn't you get any indictment, And for
[18:43] Speaker 2: you to say no, no, I'm gonna try it again
[18:45] Speaker 2: and use all those resources you have to sort of
[18:47] Speaker 2: convince your supervisor what went wrong and how you can
[18:50] Speaker 2: fix it. I think most prosecutors on their own and say, okay,
[18:54] Speaker 2: this case is too week And if not, then the
[18:56] Speaker 2: supervisor would tell them it's two weak, don't try this again.
[19:00] Speaker 2: You have a lot stronger evidence, and so you would
[19:02] Speaker 2: just drop the case at that point. So the system
[19:05] Speaker 2: institution is supposed to work that that is a rare
[19:07] Speaker 2: thing to happen. If you're the case of so week,
[19:10] Speaker 2: you couldn't get it the first time, You're Pi'm not
[19:12] Speaker 2: going to the second time, and so why we're going
[19:13] Speaker 2: to waste our time with it?
[19:15] Speaker 1: Grand jury secrecy, I don't know how. Initially, you know,
[19:19] Speaker 1: the defendants found out that there were problems with the
[19:21] Speaker 1: grand jury. But grand jury secrecy, you know, is said
[19:26] Speaker 1: to be all important. But does this show that perhaps
[19:30] Speaker 1: grand jury shouldn't be so secret or am I going
[19:33] Speaker 1: too far?
[19:34] Speaker 2: Well, I don't think you're going too far. So many people,
[19:37] Speaker 2: certainly in the academy, you know, writing like I'm writing,
[19:41] Speaker 2: have said that grand jury secrecy is a sort of vestigial,
[19:46] Speaker 2: outdated rule that we have that doesn't really apply anymore.
[19:50] Speaker 2: So even before this new wave of cases where we
[19:54] Speaker 2: now have reason to mistrust what the prosecutor might be
[19:56] Speaker 2: doing the grand jury, even before that pill question the
[19:59] Speaker 2: need for grand jury secrecy. So the main reasons for it.
[20:02] Speaker 2: We're one to avoid, you know, witness tampering or witness intimidation.
[20:08] Speaker 2: We already have laws in the books to prevent that.
[20:09] Speaker 2: That's never been something we think is widespread. We also
[20:13] Speaker 2: they say they want to prevent the especially damaging the
[20:16] Speaker 2: reputation of people who might be vetigated by grand jury
[20:19] Speaker 2: or where someone might be they might try and charge them,
[20:22] Speaker 2: but they don't, and so they want to save the
[20:24] Speaker 2: reputation is not indicted. But since so many people are indicted,
[20:28] Speaker 2: I mean against the ninety eight percent rate, generally, it
[20:31] Speaker 2: doesn't really apply in that case that we have to
[20:33] Speaker 2: protect those names. So there's not really strong reasons that
[20:37] Speaker 2: we still have today for having to keep the grand
[20:40] Speaker 2: jury secret. And given this kind of misconduct that we're seeing,
[20:44] Speaker 2: I don't think that it's something that we should keep
[20:47] Speaker 2: going there. There are state grand juries that don't have
[20:49] Speaker 2: those kinds of rules, someone that have sunshine laws that
[20:51] Speaker 2: allow you to see the grand jury transcripts at least
[20:54] Speaker 2: once the case is over, and there's never been any
[20:57] Speaker 2: kind of problem that I can see when that happened.
[20:59] Speaker 2: In fact, ended up increasing the quality of the grand
[21:03] Speaker 2: jury proceedings and making the legitimacy to the body stronger,
[21:08] Speaker 2: so people can see what's happening there, understand the grand
[21:10] Speaker 2: jury better. So I think it's probably time to end
[21:13] Speaker 2: the grandjury seekers even before this, and it's just another
[21:15] Speaker 2: good reason to do so.
[21:16] Speaker 1: Well, we haven't heard the last of the ramifications from
[21:19] Speaker 1: this case, that's certain. Thanks so much for joining me.
[21:22] Speaker 2: Rick.
[21:23] Speaker 1: That's Professor Rick Simmons of Ohio State's Maritz College of Law.
[21:27] Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
[21:30] Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
[21:32] Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[21:37] Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
[21:42] Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
[21:45] Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
[21:49] Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.