The old saw is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if asked to do so by the district attorney.
However, in Houston, a grand jury will indict a Texas Supreme Court Justice even if the DA doesn’t ask it to do so.
As noted in this earlier post, Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina, his wife and several family members have been in the cross-hairs of an arson investigation since their house and a couple of others in the neighborhood were damaged in a June 28, 2007 fire. A Harris County grand jury today indicted Justice Medina on a tampering charge and his wife on arson charges in connection with the fire.
However, in an unusual development (to say the least), the grand jury brought the indictment against the recommendation of the DA’s office. Embattled Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal will request that the indictment be dismissed immediately because the DA’s office has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to make a case that would withstand a defense motion for a directed verdict.
That’s all well and good, but my question is this: If the DA’s office knew going into the grand jury that they did not have sufficient evidence to make a case against Justice Medina, then why on earth did they bring the case before the grand jury at this time? Inquiring minds want to know.