FReepers in the legal know--please enlighten me. I thought Grand Jury proceedings (not the outcome) were secret. How can they go over the testimony with a fine comb and complain about it?
The prosecutor in this case publicly released all of the testimony and other evidence that was presented to the grand jury.
>> I thought Grand Jury proceedings (not the outcome) were secret.
They didn’t release the “proceedings” (i.e. deliberations of the jurors). Those are secret.
All they released was the evidence that was supplied to the grand jury — i.e. the facts upon which they deliberated. Apparently the evidence *isn’t* secret.
The testimony was released to the public after the grand jury made a verdict. Thus anyone could read over sworn testimony given in this particular grand jury case. Grand jury’s are secret until the jury comes to a decision or is released (meaning expired). Once a jury has given the decision the testimony can be released to the public or sealed by the judge. Usually testimony is sealed mainly in indictments or where there is highly sensitive information that would harm a person. An example of an acquittal sealed would not be just for terrorist cases brought by the government but if there is a juvenile in the mix.