|
|
|
|
|
|
by maxlybbert
2591 days ago
|
|
|
The reports on this have been very muddled, which is a shame. I may have said a few incorrect things in my comments on the case (although I stand by this particular comment). There is no judge present in a grand jury hearing. The only reason Manning was in front of a judge was that her lawyers argued that the prosecutor was using the grand jury incorrectly. Since Assange has already been indicted, there isn’t much sense in collecting additional evidence from Manning. To be honest, that argument sounds plausible to me. The judge rejected it, and ordered Manning to testify or be held in contempt. Sadly, since the news reports generally ignore Manning’s legal arguments, they also ignore the details of the judge’s order. I can think of a couple of possibilities: (1) Assange isn’t the only target (I think this is unlikely, but possible), (2) the prosecutor intends to file additional charges against Assange (I think this would be likely in a case without extradition, but extradition complicates things), (3) Manning’s lawyers are simply wrong about the limits on grand juries, or (4) the prosecutor may well be doing something wrong, but the judge can always fix it after the fact and Manning is obligated to play along for now. I really would like to know why Manning’s request was denied. All I can say right now is that she’s in contempt because she refuses to testify in front of the grand jury knowing that she won’t be charged with any more crimes related to the matter and knowing that Assange has already been charged. |
|
|
This reasoning does not make sense. The bar for indictment is not "100% of all available evidence must have been collected". One can and should collect (and subsequently present) additional evidence until the closing arguments are presented. No case is ever a "sure thing". One is wise to continue to reinforce it throughout the entire process.