[bagster]

Which brings us back to the Grand Jury rules that somebody posted earlier and I'm way too lazy to search for, wherein I highlighted the "may" not as opposed to "shall" not assign jurisdiction according to where the crime was committed. GJ jurisdiction seems subject to legal ruling rather than a strict finding of locale. An open door for lawyers to walk though and do the lawyer dance.

Okay, I got unlazy for a second;

9-11.121 - Venue Limitations

A case should not be presented to a grand jury in a district unless venue for the offense lies in that district.

The difference between "should" and "shall," and "may," are very important in lawyer-speak.

[Cboldt]

I pointed out to you earlier, the location of the trial has constitutional implications, and the venue of the GJ and the trial are the same.

I don't mind if you think YOU can get hauled off to Utah, or New Jersey of Alabama, at the prosecution whim of maximizing incovenience to you, or minimizing it to them, but fact of the matter is, you have a constitutional right to be tried WHERE the crime was commited, and if YOU commited it, you more or less picked your venue.

If a USA bring a GJ in the wrong venue, it ends up being waste, so from a department eficiency standpoint, he should convene GJ were the case is going to be tried, etc. It's not illegal if he convenes a GJ elsewhere. Knock himself out in Alaska or Hawaii for all the court cares.