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.
Houston's Clear Thinkers
Longtime Houston attorney Tom Kirkendall's observations on developments in law, business, medicine, culture, sports, and other matters of general interest to the Houston business, professional, and academic communities.
Because there’s disagreement among prosecutors in the DA’s office over whether said evidence is sufficient or not?
*shrugs*
I don’t know, P. From Falkenberg’s op-ed, it appears that a consensus existed within the DA’s office that they could not make a case, but the grand jurors chose to indict, anyway. Very strange dynamics.
I don’t know, P. From Falkenberg’s op-ed, it appears that a consensus existed within the DA’s office that they could not make a case
It would be useful if the Chronicle could get someone at the DA’s office to chat about the matter. I’m always dubious about these “on deadline” pieces from Chron metro columnists that say “so-and-so couldn’t be reached for comment.” That seems to be one of columnist Falkbenberg’s colleague Rick Casey’s techniques for excluding some comments from his columns, which probably doesn’t incline anyone to go out of their way to talk to the area’s newspaper of record.
It’s unfortunate that some Chron columnists and reporters have such poor working relationships with Harris County institutions that they can’t get inside those institutions and get better news as to what’s going on.
That’s pretty much the first thing I wondered based on my extremely limited experience as a member (with a non-legal background person) of a Federal grand jury. If they never brought it to the GJ, how would they hear about it?
This GJ seems to be very active and forceful. That is a good thing, I think. Public disclosure of what they are doing is the about only way to make any waves, though, so I wonder if they are in violation of their oath.