For 2nd time, grand jury refuses to indict New York AG Letitia James: Sources

I only learned like last year that you can keep convening grand juries until you get one that indicts. Seems kind of strange to me

When they wanted to prosecute the guy who threw a sub sandwich at the ICE agent, the Grand Jury shot them down twice. So they altered the charges so they didn't require a grand jury to go to court.
In court, the ICE agent whined about how he had PTSD, since the sandwich burst open on his uniform, and smeared mustard and onions all over it, which he had to smell all day, causing massive psychological harm.
The defense introduced a photograph of the sandwich, laying in the road, AFTER the throw, and it was still tightly wrapped. It hadn't burst open, no mustard or onions were smeared. The ICE agents entire testimony was a straight up lie. The jury found the sandwich thrower Not Guilty.
So I suspect that their next move will be to adjust the charges to bypass the Grand Jury.
- Did they charge the ICE agent for lying under oath?
But in the past it wasn't necessary because, as the saying went, you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The bar to indictment is incredibly low. So, it's actually extremely embarrassing to have the media talking about how you keep trying and failing.
Edit: I should have said it was rarely necessary.
- Ahh... To live in a time where "shame" was a thing again...
- The bar to indictment is incredibly low
  Unless a cop has murdered someone, of course. Then it's BARELY legal to convene a jury.
- Not just keep trying and failing, but doing so multiple times in just a couple months. This DOJ is run by incompetence.
I think it's so rare because grand juries have an insanely high indictment rate. They typically don't convene them unless they know for certain that they'll indict. Which is why it was so rare up until the current administration.
They generally don't though because the burden to indict is SIGNFICANTLY lower than the burden to convict. Anyone that you cannot even get an indictment for isn't likely to be convicted at trial.
- Yeah, except that dealing with a legal defense costs a lot of time and money. So even if they can't convict they can use the courts as a means to punish.
  Really shows how much our legal system needs an overhaul to prevent abuse like this.

Do they get to keep trying until it works?

I'm starting to think anarchists were right.

Well, until they get an indictment, yes. But it's very unlikely the case will do well if you struggle to even get a grand jury to say "yeah, there may be something to charge".

Just keep bringing in more grand juries against her until you either get an indictment or she dies, either way she's tied up for life.

It's a DDoJ. Distributed-denial-of-justice.

either way she's tied up for life.
She doesn't need to do anything for a grand jury hearing. The defence isn't involved.
its the benghazi thing all over again, its to keep the Sound bytes for fox train going.

The fact there's no double-jeopardy (triple? quadruple? Something not infinite at least?!) for indictments astounds me.

Then again it shouldn't surprise any more -- the US system seems to have a billion holes, like swiss-cheese, only left unexploited up until recently because those in power had, maybe, some small shred of shame and decency. All those loopholes must be absolutely sewn shut, and 'conventions' and 'gentlemenly guardrails' need to be made hard, fast, and most importantly ENFORCED laws if the country is to ever recover. I'm not hopeful.

the US system seems to have a billion holes, like swiss-cheese, only left unexploited up until recently because those in power had, maybe, some small shred of shame and decency.
I guarantee you this is true of every nation in the world.
This is one of those guardrails that's holding... so far.

Let the ketchup fly

STOP WASTING TAX DOLLARS! GTFO it!