Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Texas indictment provides teaching moment

By Mark Obbie

ADVERTISEMENTS

A state Supreme Court justice is indicted. The district attorney immediately dismisses the charge for lack of evidence. Grand jurors speak out, claiming the DA is playing politics. The grand jury could keep investigating -- or not -- and keep indicting. And the DA could likewise keep dismissing the case. Those are the facts that have played out since Thursday in Houston involving Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina. A county grand jury in Houston indicted Medina and his wife on charges related to the fire that destroyed their expensive Houston-area home last summer. The fire was ruled arson. In all of the first- and second-day news coverage -- by the AP's Michael Graczyk, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's John Moritz, the Austin American-Statesman's Chuck Lindell, The New York Times' Texas-based correspondent Ralph Blumenthal, and in most of the coverage by the main hometown newspaper on the scene, the Houston Chronicle. But just as I was despairing that no one was helping readers get such questions asked, I came across a Q&A by Houston Chronicle legal affairs reporter Mary Flood. Based on interviews with experts, Flood clears up the confusion in few words. Here are some highlights:

Q: If a grand jury found enough evidence to indict, can a prosecutor drop the charges?A: Yes, a prosecutor can immediately drop the charges.A grand jury decision does not not bind the district attorney to prosecute the case.This is because the prosecutor is the representative of the state, responsible for proceeding in criminal cases in which there appears to be sufficient evidence to likely get a conviction. The prosecutor also has a duty not to proceed when it appears there is not enough evidence.The grand jury is designed to protect citizens from overzealous prosecutors. It is not designed to protect the public from prosecutors who won't proceed on a case.

Now it makes more sense. Flood also followed up with helpful links to more grand-jury explanations on her blog.As an aside, and spoken as a longtime Texas-based journalist, I can't help but express dismay when I see The New York Times deploying more staff resources to cover this story than the Dallas Morning News and Austin American-Statesman. The former appears to have used AP coverage throughout. The Statesman staffed the story on Thursday but seems to have defaulted to AP on Friday, when the charges were dropped. Unless I'm missing something on those papers' Web sites, I'm left wondering what constitutes news important enough to warrant assigning reporters to cover it.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on January 19, 2008 (boomark / email).