What was taking place within the prison case of Nathalie Rose Jones, who was going through prices in Washington, D.C., federal court docket this summer time, wasn’t typical.
A grand jury of Washington, D.C., residents on Tuesday had denied the Justice Division’s request to indict Jones, who was accused of a federal crime for allegedly posting an Instagram risk towards President Trump.
Within the practically empty, dimly lit courtroom, Choose Moxila Upadhyaya listened to arguments from attorneys for practically quarter-hour and surveyed the case file earlier than her. She paused, appeared up on the federal prosecutor standing 10 ft away and requested what the Justice Division deliberate to do subsequent within the case.
The prosecutor had no reply however mentioned he’d have a response “as quickly as doable,” perhaps inside a couple of days.
However this grand jury’s rejection of the Justice Division’s request for an indictment was certainly one of not less than 4 such situations prior to now week, wherein a grand jury denied an indictment within the District of Columbia.
“Not solely have I by no means heard of this taking place, I’ve by no means heard of a prosecutor who’s heard of this taking place,” mentioned former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who served within the U.S. Lawyer’s Workplace for Washington, D.C., till January 2025.
“The workplace’s failure — many times — to safe indictments means that the administration has completely destroyed its credibility with jurors,” Ballou instructed CBS Information.
One other former federal prosecutor, Victor Salgado, mentioned, “It’s exceptionally uncommon for federal grand juries to reject proposed prices, given the low evidentiary bar for indictment and the Justice Division’s coverage of pursuing instances solely when there may be ample proof to each safe and maintain a conviction.”
Jones is accused of posting on Instagram in early August, “I’m prepared to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and reducing out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation current.”
In keeping with the Justice Division, on Aug. 15, the U.S. Secret Service carried out a voluntary interview with Jones, throughout which she acknowledged the president was a “terrorist” and a “Nazi.”
In a press release to CBS Information, D.C. U.S. Lawyer Jeanine Pirro mentioned, “A Washington D.C. grand jury refused to indict somebody who threatened to kill the President of america. Her intent was clear, touring by way of 5 states to take action. She even confirmed the identical to the US Secret Service. That is the essence of a politicized jury. The system right here is damaged on many ranges. As a substitute of the outrage that needs to be engendered by a selected risk to kill the president, the grand jury in DC refuses to even let the judicial course of start.”
Jones was briefly held in pretrial detention within the case final month however was launched forward of Tuesday’s listening to. She appeared by Zoom on the listening to in Choose Upadhyaya’s courtroom Tuesday and listened as a prosecutor instructed the choose that the feds haven’t determined whether or not to return to the grand jury for a second time to hunt an indictment.
Her lawyer argued in a court docket submitting this week that Jones possessed no firearms and “she repeatedly instructed them she had no intent to hurt anybody, together with the president, and was in D.C., to attend a peaceable protest.”
In a separate case, a number of folks conversant in the choice mentioned a grand jury refused a Justice Division request to indict Sean Dunn, who was accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal agent in August. Dunn is a former Justice Division worker who was fired after information circulated of his arrest within the sandwich case. The Justice Division has as a substitute filed a brand new misdemeanor depend towards Dunn, which doesn’t require a grand jury indictment.
Court docket data reviewed by CBS Information mentioned a Washington D.C., grand jury additionally rejected a Justice Division request to indict Sydney Reid, who was arrested in July for allegedly trying to intrude with the switch of an alleged gang member into immigration custody.
“As Reid tried to impede the switch, one of many (officers) pushed her towards the wall and instructed her to cease,” the Justice Division alleged in a grievance. “Reid continued to battle and struggle with the officer.”
The Justice Division acknowledged in a court docket submitting on August 25, in Reid’s case that “[a]n Indictment has not been returned.”
Final week, a D.C. grand jury additionally declined to indict Alvin Summers, who was accused of swinging his arms at a U.S. Park Police officer after a foot chase on Aug. 15. Prosecutors alleged Summers “grabbed” the officer with pressure, and charged him with assaulting and resisting an officer.
Shortly after the grand jury rejected the case, a protection lawyer for Summers filed a movement in court docket, which argued, “Mr. Summers shouldn’t be compelled to stay beneath the specter of later prices and rearrest. The fees towards Mr. Summers have been based mostly on an allegation made by one officer who was sporting a body-worn digital camera. That officer’s testimony was rejected by the grand jury, presumably after reviewing the body-worn digital camera video.”
The Justice Division filed a movement to dismiss Summers’s case on August 29.
The trajectory of Jones’ case was much less clear after Tuesday’s listening to. Upadhyaya scheduled a listening to for Monday, however declined Jones’ request to loosen the restrictions governing her launch from pretrial detention.
The explanations these D.C. grand juries haven’t handed up indictments in these instances will not be recognized, however Salgado advised it is likely to be doable that in every of those instances “that they disagreed with the Justice Division’s concept of prosecution.”
“It’s not troublesome to think about 12 D.C. jurors concluding that throwing a sandwich at a federal officer — whereas clearly objectionable and doubtlessly illegal — doesn’t quantity to felony assault,” Salgado mentioned. “At its core, the federal grand jury capabilities as an important constitutional safeguard and a important test on prosecutorial discretion, as assured by the Fifth Modification.”
