By Curt_Anderson February 23, 2023 2:51 pm Category: Law (5.0 from 1 vote) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

"You mean like a Grand Jury Foreman talking about what went on in the Grand Jury? Not only was that dangerous and stupid, it's illegal."--oldedude

No, Emily Kohrs did not say or do anything illegal. Nor will it be grounds for trial dismissal although Trump's lawyers will probably try.

The special grand jury of which Ms. Kohrs was the foreperson, was discharged last month. Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court, who is handling the case, has not barred the jurors from talking to reporters, but has sought to limit what they discuss — in particular when it comes to describing their deliberations. She studiously avoided discussing deliberations.

Special grand juries in Georgia do not have indictment powers. That Georgia jury was an investigative grand jury. Complaining that the investigative grand jury concluded laws were broken, is like a criminal defendant complaining that the police investigators biased the jury against him by concluding he broke the law.

It's a preposterous argument to claim that the potential jury pool in Trump's election tampering trial is poisoned because of the broad hints that Ms. Kohrs made. It was already obvious to those of us in the fact-based world that Trump was attempting to undermine the election. Trump and his lawyers are supposedly worried that Ms. Kohrs said among other things she laughed out loud when Trump posted on his Truth Social that he was "completely exonerated".

Trump and his lawyers have reason to worry to about information that has been made public. But it's not anything Kohrs said explicitly or implicitly. It's that "perfect phone call" that Trump made pressuring Brad Raffensperger to "find" 11,870 votes. Trump and gang of weirdos who have been claiming the election was rigged aren't helping his defense any.

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on February 23, 2023 3:07 pm Curt, Do I have this right? You and the Former Trucker were classmates Syracuse Law? Your class ranking was actually higher than Joe's. Right? Bahahahahahahahahahaha! by Curt_Anderson on February 23, 2023 3:13 pm HtS, I have never claimed to be a lawyer. It isn't something that you seem to know, but an important part of being a good citizen is know and understand the US Constitution and his have basic knowledge of our laws and legal system. You seem eager to defend Trump. If you want to play that role of the opposing attorney, do your best to refute or contradict anything I said above. by oldedude on February 23, 2023 7:34 pm Wow, you sure got your panties in a wad over that. This is the first time I have ever heard that jurors were able to even discuss what cases they had listened to as a matter of protocol. Prosecution especially usually charges people when this happens. Sooo. Cite? by Curt_Anderson on February 23, 2023 7:44 pm In Georgia, the state criminal code establishes two distinct types of grand juries: regular grand juries and “special purpose” grand juries. Special grand juries in Georgia do not have indictment powers. Read the third link below for "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Georgia Special Purpose Grand Juries But Were Afraid to Ask". usnews.com nytimes.com lawfareblog.com by oldedude on February 23, 2023 8:17 pm So here are some responses... I'm thinking you really need to look up that reference... jussayin... That is one of the things I've ALWAYS seen in Grand Jury. There is no exception here. Unless you can find it in the Law. Fight with what you "think" you have. Until you bring the evidence, you've got nuttin. Trump Prosecution Could Be Jeopardized by Georgia Grand Jury Leak The revelation that the Georgia special grand jury investigating election interference by Donald Trump and his allies in the state recommended indictments for multiple people on a range of charges in its final report could jeopardize the former president's prosecution, experts have said. The information was leaked by Emily Kohrs, a forewoman of the Georgia grand jury, on Tuesday night. Most of the jury's final report remains officially sealed. During interviews with the likes of The Associated Press and the New York Times, Kohrs revealed that the number of people recommended for indictment by the jury for meddling with Georgia's 2020 presidential election "is not a short list." She declined to disclose the name of those charged—and refused to reveal whether Trump was among those recommended for indictment. Has Trump’s ‘giggling’ Georgia grand jury foreperson blown the case?Emily Kohrs raised more than a few eyebrows with a surprise media tour in the wake of her service on Fulton County’s grand jury investigating Donald Trump’s election interference in the state. Ms Kohrs found herself the subject of surprising criticism this week after she gave a series of interviews to journalists at major media outlets around the country, all regarding her service as foreperson on the grand jury hearing evidence in the case of Mr Trump’s effort to overturn his 2020 defeat in Georgia. Trump lawyers call Georgia special grand jury proceedings ‘clown-like’ after forewoman’s remarks "Lawyers for former President Trump labeled the Georgia special grand jury probe into the 2020 election “clown-like” after the forewoman of the jury made remarks to multiple media outlets. Defense attorneys for Trump, Drew Findling and Jennifer Little, spoke to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Wednesday and indicated they may file court motions in response to forewoman Emily Kohrs’s recent public comments. The attorneys said the forewoman’s remarks to media outlets suggested that the grand jury did not operate in a professional manner. “This type of carnival, clown-like atmosphere that was portrayed over the course of the last 36 hours takes away from the complete sanctity and the integrity and, for that matter, the reliability,” Findling told the Journal-Constitution of the investigation. newsweek.com msn.com msn.com by Curt_Anderson on February 23, 2023 8:51 pm What Ms. Kohrs has said publicly isn't illegal, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. I read your links. I get it. Prosecutors and former prosecutors are appalled. Most criticize her for not taking her part in the legal process seriously. It's not surprising that prosecutors don't want anything to happen that might make their voir dire process harder. They also don't want to give any ammunition to the defense. Not one of the lawyers quoted in any of the three articles said what she did is illegal. Trump did though. But it's not illegal. The bottom line is this: Ms Kohrs has been been quite talkative with several news organizations. Apparently the judge or the DA in the case has not admonished her, much less charge her with doing anything illegal. There may actually be a positive to Ms. Kohrs' press tour: it might light a fire under Fani Willis to get a move on and prosecute Trump finally. by oldedude on February 24, 2023 7:48 am What Ms. Kohrs has said publicly isn't illegal, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. You haven't cited where it is legal to talk about sealed trial information in public. I'm waiting for that before I entertain any debate. by Donna on February 24, 2023 8:36 am Unlike all other states, in GA it's legal for grand jury members to talk publicly about cases within certain restrictions that were spelled out by the judge (I forget his name). In fact Ms. Kohrs could have provided even more info than she did and still be in compliance with GA law. I think if you Googled it you'd find many articles telling you what I just told you. by HatetheSwamp on February 24, 2023 8:52 am I'm not hearing people suggest that what she's doing is illegal. Ill advised. Narcissistic in a way that puts Trump to shame. But, illegal? No. I don't know who will be charged, if anyone, but if you think that a first-rate defense attorney won't make a lot out of this, you're fools. by Donna on February 24, 2023 10:01 am Of course first, second or even third rate defense attorneys are allowed to contest anything they're hired to contest, but since what Ms. Kohrs said was legal and in accordance with the judge's orders, I think it'd be fruitless. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to be paid for their efforts, though. by HatetheSwamp on February 24, 2023 10:21 am It's legality is faaaaaaaaaaar from the issue. Assembling an impartial jury is what's it about...if you want justice if people violated the law. by oldedude on February 24, 2023 3:24 pm Unlike all other states, in GA it's legal for grand jury members to talk publicly about cases within certain restrictions that were spelled out by the judge (I forget his name). In fact Ms. Kohrs could have provided even more info than she did and still be in compliance with GA law. but you didn't, and didn't cite. So my initial statement stands. by Curt_Anderson on February 24, 2023 3:40 pm OD, So you stand by your claim that what Emily Kohrs did is illegal? How do you account for the fact that she's not been arrested or even given a tongue-lashing by the judge? You said, "You haven't cited where it is legal to talk about sealed trial information in public." First off, I don't know and I don't think you know that what she said was "sealed trial information". Second, she hasn't said anything that a person of reasonable intelligence wouldn't have already guessed. Finally, in America our law books are full of activities that are prohibited that are illegal, not a list of permitted (legal) activities. So why don't you show us where what she said and did was illegal. You've only shown us that former prosecutors and other pundits don't like what she did. by oldedude on February 25, 2023 7:23 am You STILL haven't shown it was legal to do, especially since the records were sealed (as is usual in Grand Jury so the case is secured and "evidence" doesn't get lost or manipulated by the parties). THE STANDARD for Grand Juries is any information is sealed until unsealed by the court. It is up to YOU to show Jurors are allowed to talk about Grand Jury proceedings The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that grand jurors and federal prosecutors keep grand jury proceedings, including the existence of a federal criminal investigation, completely secret unless and until the grand jury returns an indictment against one or more defendants. Witnesses, other than law enforcement officials, called to testify before the grand jury are not generally under the same secrecy requirements. However, under most circumstances it is illegal for prosecutors to reveal the details of grand jury deliberations. This is one of the reasons that the U.S. Attorney's Office generally declines to comment on cases under investigation. You need to show the Georgia law is different than the federal law. One, they have to go through trial motions. This was unexpected so it's going to take a sometime to do that. My guess is that they won't. They'll use it in pretrial motions for mistrial. A mistrial is a trial in criminal law that concludes the case before a jury’s verdict. When a mistrial happens, it puts the case proceedings null and void. Also, if a prosecution wants to start another trial, they have to find new evidence and testimonies as the previously submitted testimonies and discoveries will not be applicable for a retrial. You're "feelings" don't count here. That's the difference between us. I would say the same if it happened to pedojoe. It'w wrong and illegal. This is why shiftless isn't on the Intel committee anymore. justice.gov thelawadvisory.com by Donna on February 25, 2023 7:53 am Fulton County judge who oversaw special grand jury in Trump probe says jurors are free to discuss final report (CNN)The judge who oversaw a special grand jury investigating efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia says he instructed jurors they were prevented from discussing deliberations but did not face restrictions in talking about the panel's final report. "The contents of the report are not deliberations," Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney told CNN. McBurney also said that the special grand jury, which has faced criticism from Trump and his legal team, did its job consistent with the rules governing special grand juries in the state. They complied with their charter," he said. The judge has ordered the contents of the panel's final report, including recommendations about whether anyone should face indictments, to remain under seal. But he acknowledged that special grand jurors are not prevented from discussing their work product. "What witnesses said, what you put in your report, those are not off-limits," he added. The report includes recommendations from the special grand jury about whether Trump or any of his associates should face criminal charges. The panel's foreperson, Emily Kohrs, went on a media blitz this week, suggesting in interviews with CNN and other outlets that the special grand jury recommended more than a dozen indictments. McBurney declined to comment on whether he believed Kohrs crossed a line about what special grand jurors were allowed to divulge during her media appearances. "It's not for me to assess," the judge said. McBurney, who previously spoke with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the instructions governing special grand jurors, elaborated on what constitutes deliberations. He noted that if a witness or prosecutor was present with the special grand jury, those discussions would be fair game for special grand jurors to discuss publicly. "If someone is presenting or if a witness is testifying responding to questions from a prosecutor, or the district attorney is talking to the grand jury, that is not deliberations," McBurney said. cnn.com by HatetheSwamp on February 25, 2023 8:24 am Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's legal. And, a perfect diversion for a narcissistic attention whore. We don't know that anyone's going to be charged. In fact, pt, you and I know exactly as much about that as Ms Kohrs. Ain't? Bahahahahahahahahahaha But, if I'm the defense attorney for anyone charged, I'll put ol Emily on my holiday card first thing! by oldedude on February 25, 2023 9:19 am "It's not for me to assess," the judge said. YES. Because there is no case before him. MY GOD! Can you learn some of the simple 6th grade government stuff? by HatetheSwamp on February 25, 2023 9:25 am OD, This thread is pulsating with TDS. You can just smell the sweet aroma of Trump-hate hope. by Donna on February 25, 2023 9:56 am Based on everything I've read on this, if a defense attorney pursues litigating the alleged infraction by Ms Kohrs, I don't think it'll go anywhere. by HatetheSwamp on February 25, 2023 10:11 am pt, The issue would be finding a jury. by oldedude on February 25, 2023 1:34 pm It wouldn't be against Kohrs per se. It would be regarding the case. They'll use it in pretrial motions for mistrial. A mistrial is a trial in criminal law that concludes the case before a jury’s verdict. When a mistrial happens, it puts the case proceedings null and void. Also, if a prosecution wants to start another trial, they have to find new evidence and testimonies as the previously submitted testimonies and discoveries will not be applicable for a retrial. She put that in jeopardy. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that grand jurors and federal prosecutors keep grand jury proceedings, including the existence of a federal criminal investigation, completely secret unless and until the grand jury returns an indictment against one or more defendants. Witnesses, other than law enforcement officials, called to testify before the grand jury are not generally under the same secrecy requirements. However, under most circumstances it is illegal for prosecutors to reveal the details of grand jury deliberations. This is one of the reasons that the U.S. Attorney's Office generally declines to comment on cases under investigation. You need to show the Georgia law is different than the federal law. Which y'all are unwilling or unable to do. by Donna on February 25, 2023 1:36 pm I still don't see ot going anywhere. by Donna on February 25, 2023 1:59 pm Trump is desperate, so of course he'll pursue anything that has even a remote chance of killing the case. From the link: Many legal experts agreed, however, that Kohrs’s comments are unlikely to affect the outcome of the case. She didn’t give away any confidential information, and the grand jury can only recommend indictments. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will make the final call on whether to bring charges against people. Norm Eisen, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution, tweeted that the Trump team’s attempts to use Kohrs’s media tour to quash indictments was “not gonna work"... But legal experts also agreed that what Kohrs did was unprecedented and incredibly inappropriate. “Kohrs’s media tour isn’t helpful, and feeds into Trump’s argument that the grand jury investigation is a political witch hunt by a Democratic district attorney and the left-leaning mainstream media,” former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek. newrepublic.com by oldedude on February 25, 2023 3:41 pm Like I said at the beginning of this whole discussion (both threads). I have NEVER in my life of working with LEAs heard of this happening. Regardless of Curt's "feelings" that nothing was done, the FACT she mentioned the case by name is completely wrong. The rest of it is just icing on the top, and (if I were a Trump lawyer) I would argue extensively that her going on a media circus prejudiced jury selection. Therefore, it's not a fair trial. I doubt VERY seriously the judge gave ANYONE the okay, or right to talk about any of the cases they heard, knowing what a first year law student would do with that information. Is "she" going to get charged? I seriously don't think so. She's just the vehicle that's going to get him off. by Curt_Anderson on February 25, 2023 4:06 pm OD, I appreciate you sharing your heartfelt feelings on this issue. It’s to your credit that you are in touch with your feeling, especially in face of contradictory evidence. by oldedude on February 25, 2023 4:10 pm Again. Look at the law. I know that's really hard for you to do seeing as it usually contradicts your "feelings." That's my evidence. The fact of the law. Not a media source that may or may not have the true story. by oldedude on February 25, 2023 4:18 pm These are either headlines or excerpts of what other are saying. I got a smattering from FOXNews to Vanity Fair, Newsweek, etc. 'Oddball' Trump grand jury foreperson Emily Kohrs dealt a 'terrible blow' to prosecution, Andrew McCarthy says Emily Kohrs Has Harmed Image of Trump Georgia Probe–Former Prosecutor The Fulton County DA’s investigation into the attempt by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia has long been seen as one of the biggest legal threats to the ex-president. As prosecutor Fani Willis told The Washington Post in September, “The allegations are very serious. If indicted and convicted, people are facing prison sentences.” In January, the special grand jury impaneled to examine the case wrapped up its work, and while its indictment recommendations remain under wraps, there is obviously a possibility that its members felt Trump (and/or some of his pals) should be prosecuted. One reason the former guy and his buddies might not end up being charged? The bizarre media tour that the jury’s forewoman has been on in the last 24 hours and counting, which some legal experts fear could jeopardize the DA’s ability to nail Trump to a wall. Take it from a former prosecutor: Emily Kohrs' media tour is reckless msn.com newsweek.com vanityfair.com msnbc.com by Curt_Anderson on February 25, 2023 4:32 pm "6. by Curt_Anderson on February 23, 2023 8:51 pm What Ms. Kohrs has said publicly isn't illegal, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea." OD, I stand by with what I said about twenty comments earlier and the headline of this thread. Her comments may be reckless, ill advised, dangerous and stupid. All those adjectives are feeling words. You have a right to your own feelings. The Georgia statutes do not say what she she did was illegal. No lawyer has said or will say what Ms. Kohrs did was illegal. Not even the judge who told jurors what they could and couldn't say publicly or the DA in the case. If it were illegal they'd certainly say it to keep other jurors from also talking to the media. by Donna on February 25, 2023 5:07 pm I've heard several legal experts say that Georgia is the only US state that allows grand jury members to speak to the public at all about an active case. If I can find a reputable source that explains the differences, I'll post a link. by oldedude on February 25, 2023 5:41 pm please by Donna on February 25, 2023 5:48 pm This article explains Georgia law very well. I f****d up the cut & pasting and and lost everything, and we're just about to have meat loaf dinner. A lot of the difference has to do with this grand jury bring a "special" grand jury and that it isn't allowed to issue indictments. google.com Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page