We have yet another data point in what is either a revolution underway in the Washington grand jury, a revolutionarily poor job being done by Washington prosecutors, some combination of the two, or some still-unknown phenomenon unfolding amid the Trump administration’s crackdown in the nation’s capital.
Whatever is happening, it’s not normal. That’s true of much else these days, but this latest stark chapter goes to the heart of the justice system. While it’s well understood that trial juries wield significant power, grand juries can shape, curb or kill cases at their inception. Most cases easily move past the grand jury stage. But grand jurors in D.C. aren’t acting as a rubber stamp.
We already knew about the whopping triple failure to indict Sidney Reid, as well as the failure to do the same against sandwich thrower Sean Dunn. Both cases are proceeding as misdemeanors instead of felonies after grand juries rejected more serious charges of assaulting law enforcement.
Now, grand jurors have declined to approve another indictment in a case charged under that same assault statute. This one involves Alvin Summers, whose case prosecutors actually moved to dismiss (though “without prejudice,” meaning they could try again later, a distinction that dominated the saga surrounding New York City Mayor Eric Adams). Seeking a permanent dismissal on Thursday, Summers’ lawyers wrote that the officer’s testimony “was rejected by the grand jury, presumably after reviewing the body-worn camera video.”
Grand jury deliberations are secret, so we don’t know the precise rationale that led to the rejections in any of these cases. But it’s quite rare for grand jurors to refuse to indict any case, let alone three in quick succession or three times in the same case.
That previously led me to wonder, in examining the Reid and Dunn cases, whether grand jurors simply thought prosecutors couldn’t satisfy the relatively low evidentiary burden at this preliminary stage of a case, or whether grand jurors were making more profound statements of nullification, the latter referring to situations in which jurors believe prosecutors have proved their cases but nonetheless reject them because they find the prosecutions or what they represent offensive.
The implications of either scenario are striking. And remember, this is just what we know about what has happened so far. This incredible story is still being written, but it’s one that can’t be ignored amid everything else that’s abnormal in these times.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
