I have a question about grand juries

[lancdem]

I'm sure many of you have seen the LBN story on the WH counsel testifying today before the Plamegate grand jury. I think it's significant this story came out tonight AFTER the evening news, and on a Friday, which is a dump day for bad news. Obviously, the WH didn't want people to know about it.

My question is, is there usually a lag time between when testimony is heard and indictments actually brought? And are indictments usually brought in the beginning of the week?

What I'm asking is, is it probable we could see indictments next week? Cheney has already been interviewed, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bush has as well.

[Pepperbelly]

1. no predicting ...

We don't know how much, if any, testimony remains to be taken.

[H2O Man]

2. A grand jury can do

two things: weigh evidence presented to it to determine if it warrents an indictment, and (as in this case) be used as an investigatory tool, frequently leading to indictments. This news on the attorney being questioned was not necessarily manipulated by the White House. The g.j. is now acting discreetly, as it should. Also, thje indictments will not likely be announced until 7-14.

[punpirate]

3. It's not likely to happen that way....

Indictments can come at any time during the term of the grand jury, and, it's doubtful that a grand jury would return an indictment before hearing from all subpoenaed witnesses, especially in a case as politically charged as this one has the potential to be.

Federal statutes set the terms of regular and special grand juries. Regular grand juries sit for between 18 and 24 months, while special grand juries sit for between 18 and 36 months.

As well, testimony during grand jury proceedings likely instigate additional investigation by the prosecutor's staff, so the more witnesses, the more time taken to develop evidence.

So, don't hold your breath. It's not going to happen in the next few days. I would guess that there won't be any indictments for at least another two months or so--maybe six months, tops.

[lancdem]

4. That could be after the election

Damn.

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

5. I don't mean to hijack thread, but ...

... what's in it for the WH to put out the news that Gonzales testified? Unless there's an indictment and grand jury evidence is used at trial, no one ever has to know the identity of anyone who appeared before the g.j.

Why is the WH being so forthcoming about Gonzales?

[lancdem]

6. You raise an interesting point

BTW, on reflection, I don't think this will drag out much longer, because I've saw articles a few months ago saying Fitzgerald wanted to see it wind down.