Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mojoxer t1_jecyqij wrote

It means a group of people called a grand jury have seen enough evidence presented by prosecutors that they think the person being investigated should be tried for crimes.

That’s it. Not that anyone is guilty or innocent. Just that there should be a trial, because there’s enough evidence to hold one.

1,269

BadSanna t1_jed8ou7 wrote

Nice and succinct.

179

spankydave t1_jedoq4c wrote

Next reddit post: eli5 what does "succinct" mean?

70

SturgiesYrFase t1_jedoupk wrote

Short but explains clearly.

46

selfbeyondtheory t1_jedpgx7 wrote

eli5: "clearly"

23

MrMiget12 t1_jedptab wrote

eil5: "eli5"

22

The_Middler_is_Here t1_jedqgkq wrote

What is 5, and why are we so certain that it's more than 3?

9

TheDood715 t1_jedqtzh wrote

Because some things are and some things are not.

6

Kidiri90 t1_jedrrr6 wrote

But 5 is less than 3!

EDIT: Why am I being downvotee? 3!=6>5

4

MrMiget12 t1_jedqjr9 wrote

I've heard from a reliable source that 2+2=5. Is this true?

1

phagga t1_jedsbg4 wrote

Only for extremely large values of 2.

4

UltHamBro t1_jedqobr wrote

It depends on what the Party said.

−1

MeiNeedsMoreBuffs t1_jedsipl wrote

It's going to be true from 11 o'clock to 13 o'clock every fifth wednesday, so be sure to adjust your travel plans accordingly

1

tehpwarp t1_jedowj1 wrote

The act of giving oral to a tattooed person.

12

Arctic_Colossus t1_jedp2ed wrote

ELI5: What does oral mean?

5

tehpwarp t1_jedqbu2 wrote

The tattooed person attempting to name the mountains between Russia and Kazakhstan, while someone is succinting them.

3

Baktru t1_jedq18i wrote

It's part of the name of a brand of toothpaste.

0

V1per41 t1_jed373t wrote

So how is this different than getting a judge to sign an arrest warrant or something similar? Is it the type of crime that matters?

53

owmyfreakingeyes t1_jed4tb2 wrote

An arrest warrant just means that a person can be arrested, that is, brought in by police against their will for short term holding and questioning. Many people are released from an arrest with no charges being brought. The warrant is essentially saying there is at least enough evidence to take a closer look at this person.

An indictment would be the next step, or more commonly in the case of most state charges and federal misdemeanors a prosecutor just makes a decision to bring criminal charges. This step is typically saying that there is significant evidence and in practice it typically means that the prosecution is confident they will win. Federal indictments result in a conviction about 95% of the time.

144

[deleted] t1_jedk4ep wrote

[deleted]

16

Zagrycha t1_jedkk7g wrote

yeah you could theoretically be called for grand jury duty. You may look into regular jury duty selection if curious since it'll answer your question-- basically lots and lots of lawyers questioning jury people and dismissing those they think are too biased etc until they have the right amount of people.

17

Welpe t1_jedqpll wrote

Grand Jury is definitely more interesting than normal jury duty, I’ll say that. Potentially way more traumatic though. Though for cases like this it wouldn’t be a normal grand jury, who are usually empaneled to a good amount of cases over a week, two week, sometimes multiple months in certain jurisdiction. I’m pretty sure for something this big the grand jury was only empaneled for this specifically.

Note that for grand juries the person being accused doesn’t get representation, nor is there a judge. The DA leads the proceedings. That’s why you hear things like “You could indict a ham sandwich”. Generally speaking, a committed DA can close to always get an indictment. Though with cases like this with major political ramifications I doubt there was much bias involved. Getting the indictment only for him to be found not guilty at trial because you overplayed your hand could be career ending. They honestly do want insight into how a jury will see the evidence, what questions they have about it, etc. It would be profoundly foolish to waste the opportunity on just getting an indictment with weak evidence.

8

Zagrycha t1_jeferkv wrote

I agree that the reason grand jury has such a high indictment rare is definitely related to the fact they probably won't call for grand jury without evidence to cause a high indictment rate.

2

Apollyom t1_jedrl2m wrote

The Thing about grand jury's are that they are given almost unlimited investigative power, via the ability to subpoena people and things.

3

RightioThen t1_jedclzz wrote

Is this not a NY state indictment though?

8

owmyfreakingeyes t1_jedd927 wrote

It is. I don't know about New York specifically, but state/county prosecutors often have the option to defer to a grand jury and it tends to be done in high profile cases or situations where the prosecutor wants distance or cover from the decision to charge or not to charge.

It's less common for state charges and the process varies more by jurisdiction so the conviction statistics aren't as reliable as the federal ones.

27

thelanoyo t1_jedfq99 wrote

Nobody wants to be the guy to press charges against a high profile anybody. Let the grand jury do it so that prosecutors can use them as a scape goat basically.

20

M3rr1lin t1_jedis36 wrote

I wouldn’t necessarily call it a scape goat. It’s intended to bring a level of impartiality which I think is a good thing. I’m general I think they should be used more often , but especially in cases where it can be high profile.

25

Welpe t1_jedqx69 wrote

A case this high profile not even a grand jury would function as a scapegoat. If they got the indictment but not the conviction because they overplayed the evidence they had…let’s just say it would not be a positive career move. They absolutely want the opinion of the grand jury on the evidence they have and playing fast and loose with bias to get the indictment with weak evidence would be self-destructive.

1

FrigginSavage t1_jedi8qy wrote

why did the warrant part get skipped in this case?

1

TuckerMouse t1_jedkidq wrote

Likely because they know where he is, and he isn’t going to be able to disappear easily. Too high profile, and frankly too …loud? to be able to go unnoticed.

14

foxpaws42 t1_jedkvzi wrote

Dunno if you're referring to a search warrant or arrest warrant; I'll assume the latter.

Broadly speaking, arrest warrants are issued because many suspects flee and hide instead of choosing to face justice, so the police has to arrest them to prevent that from happening.

In cases where the suspect is deemed unlikely to flee (or be unsuccessful at hiding) the justice system sometimes allows them to surrender on their own to face arraignment.

Additional factors: Was the crime violent, or white collar? Is the person sufficiently high-profile enough that offering a voluntary surrender is (politically and socially) preferable to arresting them at their home?

11

GrinningPariah t1_jedqfu1 wrote

Arrest warrants and indictments are both early steps in charging someone with a crime, but that doesn't mean one is just the logical next step.

There's a lot of reasons you can get an arrest warrant for someone. You can get a warrant because they're one of several suspects, and a flight risk. Or because you have reason to believe they have information about the case, even though you don't suspect them personally.

2

CaptainBillyum t1_jedcll4 wrote

until i see an orange jumpsuit on him, i'm not getting excited. i honestly dont have high hopes unfortunately

23

Madmanmelvin t1_jedihdu wrote

I have to admit, this is further than I thought they'd ever get. I know nothing happened before, but this might be the real deal.

2

anax44 t1_jednmwz wrote

> I know nothing happened before, but this might be the real deal.

What makes this time different?

1

Brickypoo t1_jedp9g6 wrote

This particular crime technically already saw court, where his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who facilitated the illegal payments, was convicted and went to prison for a few years. At the time, Trump was also believed to be criminally culpable, but he argued that sitting presidents can't be charged with crimes.

The prosecutors basically said "ok, we'll wait", and now that he's been out of office, they finally assembled their case.

2

huskersax t1_jedqtlo wrote

The other thing that will happen is that the more Trump plays footsy with the legal system, the more the rats will want to get off the sinking ship.

With the prospect of a second Trump term less likely, they're be more mouths to feed than cronyism to feed them, and his ability to stave off witnesses and prevent other issues in civil court lessens.

2

Welpe t1_jedrawk wrote

Let’s not forget that Trump is one of the worst testifiers of all time. He BETTER take his lawyers seriously when they forbid him from taking the stand, because who knows what he will say on the stand to make things worse. It’s not entirely clear that he even registers when he is lying, it is so ingrained in his style of speaking it’s barely conscious. It seems like he just says what he wants to be true and assumes it therefore is, which is a major problem when under oath.

Trump is going to want to take the stand 100% though, and it’s unclear if he will let his lawyers stop him. They have succeeded in the past, but he despises them for it and chafes at the idea of not being able to tell his story, and the more it happens the more resisting he becomes the next time.

We could very easily see perjury charges if he isn’t smart about this.

2

huskersax t1_jedrzol wrote

>Let’s not forget that Trump is one of the worst testifiers of all time. He BETTER take his lawyers seriously when they forbid him from taking the stand, because who knows what he will say on the stand to make things worse.

"I worked on that cross-examination for six months and then he... just... tweeted it out." - Lead Prosecutor, probably.

4

anax44 t1_jedt43b wrote

thanks!

u/Welpe & u/huskersax, thanks for the answers as well!

2

Welpe t1_jedtfer wrote

I would still probably stress to not get your hopes up TOO high (Or worry TOO much if you are a fan) but this has potential. This is the first time that it honesty looks possible that he will be convicted of something. Even if the prosecutor has some very strong evidence (Which it increasingly looks like is true), you never know anything for certain when it comes down to a jury. One person with a different impression of the evidence or beliefs about the president could be what keeps him out of prison.

1

anax44 t1_jedu1fz wrote

>I would still probably stress to not get your hopes up TOO high (Or worry TOO much if you are a fan) but this has potential.

Neither hopeful, nor a fan. Just an interested non-American.

Fwiw though, I think Trump was a test for America, and America failed.

2

Madmanmelvin t1_jeg4l60 wrote

  1. Donald Trump is no longer president. There are a ton of potential legal issues with charging a sitting US president with a crime. It opens up a can of legal worms, basically.
  2. This is a state case. This can't be pardoned away in the future. Pardons can only happen on the federal level. Nixon got pardoned by Ford, which is some BS IMO, but it happened.
  3. There was enough evidence to produce an indictment. That's already a big deal. Its just not some hearsay or circumstantial evidence.
  4. Anybody going after a former president is going to face significant backlash. They're not just doing it casually. If the evidence isn't airtight, careers might be ruined.
2

wheatgivesmeshits t1_jedatqn wrote

While true it's also fleetingly rare for a grand jury indictment not to lead to a conviction. Federal Grand juries have a conviction rate of over 99%.

Edit: I was mistaken. Grand juries almost always indict, but conviction rates seem pretty hard to track down if anyone knows what the conviction rate is, please elucidate the rest of us.

14

Ninjaromeo t1_jedd9r0 wrote

They have an indictment rate that high.

Any source on conviction rate being that high?

8

wheatgivesmeshits t1_jedegct wrote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/

Edit: this shows indictment rate, not conviction rate. I can't find a good source for the conviction rate.

1

GamerLeFay t1_jedf5fq wrote

Pay walled, but what I can see of the article is saying that they indict 99% of the time, not the rate at which they convict.

7

Ninjaromeo t1_jedg3zz wrote

Paywall bypassed

It does not say anything about conviction rate.

I think they just don't understand that indictment means "charged with" and not "guilty"

This eli5 would help, but a lot of wrong info here too

5

CalTechie-55 t1_jedi2e0 wrote

It's not surprising because the prosecutors generally don't present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. And there is no attorney for the defense. So, hearing only one side of the case, they almost always vote to indict.

5

mfb- t1_jednl5h wrote

There is no precedent for this specific case, so I wouldn't extrapolate from past conviction rates anyway.

3

kynthrus t1_jedewbv wrote

Everything I know about being indicted I learned from Jim Carry in Dick and Jane. Expect to see some crazy shenanigans and heists from the Trumps.

5

Suitable_Savings_556 t1_jedb1um wrote

It means chargesheeted...the trial can commence. because its already presented before a grand jury who have reviewed the evidence and come to an unanimous conclusion that there is enough wrongdoing for a case , chances of a conviction are very high. The only thing left is the opportunity to rebut the evidence presented so far by the defence team.in the usa trials proceed quickly..like 2-3 months max, so that you can't postpone the inevitable like in india, trial court judgement has power, unlike india where it's lots easier to appeal in High court and delay going to jail

1

JamesXX t1_jedd5rl wrote

Nice, basic definition.

I'd only add to make clear that the defendant usually gets no representation before a grand jury. Only the prosecution gets to make their case. That's why it's extremely rare for a grand jury not to indict someone. An article from a few years ago notes: "U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them." That's why there's a famous saying that goes, "if a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich".

Not as nicely succinct as you, but an important point to keep in mind about indictments!

1

antoninp t1_jedqyd7 wrote

Thank you for the answer.

Does it mean that every trial has started with an indictment or is it only for a limited list of "crimes" ?

In many countries, the prosecutor decides himself if sbdy should go to trial.

1

RednBlackEagle t1_jedrt56 wrote

Are the grand jury random people from the US?

Do they all have to agree on the indictment or would it also be an indictment if only, say 6 out of 10 grand jury members, think the person should be investigated?

1

mojoxer t1_jeg6wcc wrote

Depending on the jurisdiction, some grand juries only need a 66% agreement rate and some only need a 75% agreement rate.

1

afurtivesquirrel t1_jedxu10 wrote

FYI this is what it means in America.

Admittedly, given the current, ahem, political climate, this is almost certainly the answer the OP was looking for. But it's worth noting that this answer is only true for precisely two jurisdictions: The United States and Liberia.

No other countries have grand juries.

1

[deleted] t1_jed2xw5 wrote

[removed]

−2

BOS_George t1_jed4q36 wrote

>Nope. It means the person will be charged with a crime.

Nope. It means the person has been charged with a crime.

6

[deleted] t1_jed5233 wrote

[removed]

−1

BOS_George t1_jed5k4p wrote

Who said “will be indicted”? Are you ok?

1

[deleted] t1_jed5q8f wrote

[removed]

−2

BOS_George t1_jed67ia wrote

Oh, I see you just misunderstood what was being discussed. The question was “what does indicted mean?”. You decided to talk about a future indictment, which is strange given the context that a certain indictment actually occurred today and likely gave rise to the question.

3