AG Bondi and President Trump Violate Precepts of Criminal Justice that DOJ Tax Knows and Gets Right (6/8/25)

 I write today on a basic premise of the criminal justice system that Trump and his minions have misrepresented in a malevolent way. I contrast those misrepresentations with the way DOJ Tax Division (and other DOJ components) act more responsibly.

Attorney General Pam Bond is quoted in several news articles, including ABC News quoted here, except that I bold-face for emphasis):

"The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring," Bondi said. "They found this was his full time job, not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over 100 trips, the grand jury found, smuggling people throughout our country."

Abrego Garcia's indictment was the pretext for obtaining his return from El Salvador that the courts have ordered for some time now.

As all readers of this blog know (I hope), an indictment is not a finding of guilt nor is it a finding of any fact such as proclaimed publicly by AG Bondi. Grand juries only determine probable cause to indict–a significantly lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for finding guilt of a crime)--and indictments do not require unanimity as required in criminal trials.

When done right, as DOJ Tax routinely does, the announcement of any indictment always includes:

An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

See, e.g., here.

Further, as to the role of grand juries in the system, AG Bondi should acquaint herself with the relevant provisions of the DOJ's Justice Manual that all DOJ attorneys, including the AG, must know and follow (except in her case she may not know or follow):

Title 9: Criminal, 9-11.000 - Grand Jury, here

AG Bondi might also acquaint herself with AG Robert Jackson's (later Supreme Court Justice) famous statement on "The Federal Prosecutor," posted on DOJ's website here.

In contrast to AG Bondi, the senior federal prosecutor in the district where the indictment was obtained reportedly resigned because the indictment was seen as a political action rather than a justice action. E.g., Chief Prosecutor Resigned Over Kilmar Abrego Garcia Indictment, Feared Case Pursued for 'Political Reasons': Report (Mediaite 6/7/25) here.

I repeat another truism, although perhaps somewhat hyperbolical, that a prosecutor can influence a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. See, e.g., Wiktionary (here). Google's AI tool Gemini says:

AI Overview

The phrase "indict a ham sandwich" is a legal idiom, not a literal description of a food crime. It's a humorous way to describe the ease with which prosecutors can secure indictments from a grand jury, even when the evidence is weak or flimsy. It highlights the low bar for probable cause required to obtain an indictment. 

Explanation:

• Grand Jury:

In many legal systems, a grand jury is a group of citizens who decide whether there is enough evidence to formally charge someone with a crime. 

• Indictment:

An indictment is a formal charge brought by a grand jury against someone, indicating that there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial. 

• Probable Cause:

The standard for obtaining an indictment is "probable cause," meaning that there is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. 

• The Saying's Meaning:

The phrase "indict a ham sandwich" suggests that a prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to issue an indictment even on the slightest of evidence or with no real evidence at all. 

• Sol Wachtler:

The phrase is famously attributed to former New York state chief judge Sol Wachtler, who said that a good prosecutor could "indict a ham sandwich," highlighting his view on the ease with which grand juries were influenced by prosecutors. 

Finally, President Trump has improperly proclaimed the guilt of Abrego Garcia publicly. E.g., Zach LaChance, Trump confident about 'very easy' case against Abrego Garcia (Washington Examiner 6/7/25), here. Again, I turn to Google's AI Gemini, asking the question whether the President should be commenting on criminal cases:

AI Overview

No, the President should not comment on the guilt of a defendant before a trial. Doing so can undermine the fairness of the trial by potentially influencing the jury or judge, as well as violating the principle of presumption of innocence.

Here's why:

Presumption of Innocence:

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The President's comments could sway public opinion and undermine this presumption, even before the trial begins.

Potential for Bias:

The President's comments, especially if they are strong opinions, could create a biased environment for the jury or judge. This could make it difficult for them to remain impartial and reach a fair verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court.

Impact on Jury Selection:

If the President's comments are widely publicized, it could make it difficult to find a fair and unbiased jury. Potential jurors might have already formed an opinion based on the President's statements.

Conflict with the Judicial Process:

The judicial system is designed to ensure a fair and impartial trial. The President's comments could interfere with this process and undermine the integrity of the courts.

In essence, the President's role is not to be a judge or jury. Their comments could prejudice the trial and potentially lead to an unfair outcome. The judicial process should be allowed to run its course without undue outside influence. 

To summarize, DOJ Tax knows how to do it right; Trump and his minions either don't know or don't care.