The second Grand Jury sitting on the case became know only a short while ago…..
The media has been watching the original Grand Jury in Washington DC…..
But Just Security has pointed to a issue that the Feds may have…..
The classified files/document’s came FROM the White House in Washington DC….
But they were found in the ex-President’s possession IN Florida….
Sure Jack Smith would want to try the case in a Washington DC jury poll vs a Florida one….
But he maybe worried now that a DC conviction might be get tossed …..
We’re talking about a defendant that HAS money and isn’t just gonna accept a conviction….
If there is a Jan. 6 Trump indictment THAT would stay in the nation’s capital one would assume….
Much has been written in the last 24 hours about where charges against former President Donald Trump would be brought with respect to his handling of government documents and obstructing the investigation into that conduct. The Constitution requires each criminal charge be brought in the location where the criminal conduct at issue occurred, but often that is in multiple jurisdictions, leaving the government free to choose from a variety of locations after considering a variety of factors.
But what if.
What if Special Counsel Jack Smith charges Trump in Washington DC, wins a criminal conviction from a jury finding the former president guilty of all charges, but also finding that the conduct occurred outside of DC and thus should never have heard the case? Can Smith try again in Florida?
Indeed, a little-noted pending Supreme Court case may well be something that is complicating the calculus for Smith, leading to a particularly cautious approach on his part. The case at issue, argued before the Justices only a few weeks ago, concerns what happens when the government gets its venue decision wrong. Venue is an issue that can be submitted to a criminal trial jury, to decide whether the particular count the jury is considering is properly brought in the district.
The Supreme Court case concerns the legal ramifications when an appellate court or the jury itself determines that the charge was not properly brought in that district. One issue is whether the appropriate constitutional remedy is to prohibit the government from bringing the case in another district – preventing prosecutors from getting a second bite at the apple. An adjacent constitutional principle may also come into play: the double jeopardy clause. That clause typically arises when a jury returns a verdict of “not guilty,” which precludes the government from trying the defendant again for that crime. But what are the consequences when a jury (or appellate court) is “only” or specifically finding that the case was not tried in the correct district? Can the defendant be tried in another district? Does it depend on the good faith of the prosecutors in selecting the venue, or the factors the government considered, or is that all irrelevant?
It is always hazardous to try to guess the outcome of a Supreme Court case following oral argument. That said, “the US Supreme Court appeared unconvinced that trying a criminal case in the wrong place precludes prosecuting it again at the correct venue,” a close observer of the oral argument wrote….
Florida is legally a less risky venue at this juncture. Whatever legal and factual arguments might support venue in Washington, DC, the consequences of getting that calculus wrong, is an unknown variable that will counsel in favor of caution on the part of DOJ. It is that caution that may well be behind the flurry of activity we are seeing in Florida…..
The indictment HAS come down from the Florida Federal Grand Jury…..