We've received several questions about why a grand jury was involved in the Breonna Taylor case.
In Kentucky, grand juries are convened to consider felony charges. Prosecutors have complete control over what goes to a grand jury.
In Taylor's case, the Attorney General acted as a special prosecutor. AGs stepping in as special prosecutors is becoming common practice in cases involving police violence because of the relationships that prosecutors and police departments have.
A KY grand jury is made up of 12 people who hear evidence collected on a potential crime. They don't decide guilt or innocence -- only whether there is enough evidence to formally charge a person with a crime.
Suspects typically have no role in these proceedings, which are conducted entirely in secret. The prosecutor presents evidence. The grand jury can subpoena documents, records, and witnesses.
The grand jury has 60 days after a referral to decide whether to indict. In order to return an indictment, 9 of 12 grand jurors must agree.
There is a very long history of using grand juries, which are supposed to protect individuals from government overreach. Like many other aspects of the criminal legal system, grand juries have strayed far from that purpose.
Because of the complexity of law and evidence, grand juries are heavily influenced by prosecutors. They also often give prosecutors cover in cases that draw public interest.
That's why there is an outcry for information about the grand jury in Breonna Taylor's case to be released. The family and the public would like to know how AG Cameron presented this case, what evidence was available to grand jurors, and what charges the grand jury considered.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
January 6th Committee Hearing 7 - Chairman Thompson is gaveling in
"When I think about the most basic way to explain the importance of elections in the United States, there's a phrase that always comes to mind...we settle our differences at the ballot box." - Rep. Thompson
"When you're on the losing side...you can protest, you can organize, you can get ready for the next election...but you can't turn violent. You can't try to achieve your desired outcome through force or harassment or intimidation." - Rep. Thompson
Jacobson v. Mass is a Supreme Court case from 1905. Massachusetts had a law stating that the board of health or a city or town could “require and enforce the vaccinations and revaccination of all inhabitants thereof.”
The fine for noncompliance was $5. Physicians could certify certain children as “unfit subjects for vaccination.”
Agree with Branden that the language around this has been imprecise. It is a sweeping action, AND testing is an alternative to vaccination. And, there's a lot of other stuff in this plan that isn't getting much coverage:
The administration is using the Defense Production Act to increase the availability of testing. Rapid, at-home tests will be sold at cost for 3 months via Walmart, Amazon, Kroger. The administration is sending 25 million rapid tests fo community health centers and food banks.
The free testing program is expanding to 10,000 pharmacies. Basically, a lot of money and resources are being aimed at expanding the availability, convenience, and discipline around testing (editorial comment: hallelujah. I wish we had done this 2 years ago -b).
Tomorrow on the podcast, my friend Brian (in Sarah's absence-enjoy the vacation, Sarah!) & I briefly discuss the corporate fallout from Georgia's elections legislation. I have a little more I would like to say about this, with help from America's favorite pastime.
I've read so many "is it really voter suppression?" takes over the past few days. I would so much like to exit the Take Economy.
As we've said before, there are elements of this (big ole) bill that are desirable... Like allowing officials to start processing absentee ballots earlier.