My understanding is that the last 2 grand jury indictments have been unanimous and handed down by both democrats and republicans. That leads me to believe that the decision to indict was relatively impartial. I'm sure you think that is naive but I haven't seen anything that would make me feel otherwise.

How can you explain a grand jury indicting four hours after convening for the first time? Is it really possible to see the evidence presented, deliberate, and come to a decision in four hours? I don't htink so.

I once got engaged, had a threesome and broke up in four hours.

I can't explain it but then again, I don't have much experience with Grand Juries. This is what I was able to find.

That seems to suggest to me that, while sometimes it may require more than one session, the average time is a little over 5 hours. Doesn't seem unreasonable if I am reading it correctly. Like I said though, I don't have a clue how these things work, so I have no way of knowing what link of time is unreasonable. Do you?

That sounds reasonable as well. :)

I was discussing the Delay case with a client today, and she said if she were in the courtroom with Delay (or better yet, visiting him in prison) she'd be sure to say to him "Now tell the truth, Tom- isn't this kind of fun?"

:D

Well, the first grand jury on the conspiracy charge was out for six months, if I am not mistaken. Sorry if I am - I just thought I had read that - I could be wrong.

I am SHOCKED!!!! Surely a liberal such as yourself believes in innocent until proven guilty!

I was merely repeating what my client said, Scaeagles. I agreed wholeheartedly, though.:D