The arrest of a US army veteran who protested against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has raised alarms among legal experts and fellow veterans familiar with his service in Afghanistan.
Bajun Mavalwalla II – a former army sergeant who survived a roadside bomb blast on a special operations mission in Afghanistan – was charged in July with “conspiracy to impede or injure officers” after joining a demonstration against federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) in Spokane, Washington.
Legal experts say the case marks an escalation in the administration’s attacks on first amendment rights. Afghanistan war veterans who know him say the case against Mavalwalla appears unjust.
A reminder that Grand Juries indict 99.99999% of the time. To the point where the multiple grand Juries that refused to indict the guy that threw the sandwich at ICE officers was actually newsworthy.
They aren’t there to determine whether it is likely someone did something, just whether the charges are even minimally plausible.
Regular juries asses whether the charges are “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Grand juries have a different standard of, “more likely than not.” The prosecutors in this case convinced enough of the grand jury that he 'more likely than not commuted the crime. Not sure how you meant “minimally plausible” but those are the standards the courts use.
The standard for a grand jury is probable cause, not more likely than not. Civil court is preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), and criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Grand juries are much more hand-picked than regular juries; they say a decent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich
They’re not hand picked at all. They are randomly chosen. Source: was on one.
They also generally only hear what the prosecution wants them to hear. If you only hear one side of the story, then it’s easy to err on that side.