PROBABLE CAUSE is the standard for federal indictment - NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt" !!

[ElementaryPenguin]

So why did Mueller act like he had to have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to bring a case or accuse of a crime?

How do prosecutors obtain federal indictments?

By law, a federal indictment can only be brought (or in technical terms “returned”) by a grand jury, which is a body of 16 to 23 citizens chosen from the community. The grand jury hears evidence and testimony from witnesses presented by the prosecution. It has the power to ask questions, and subpoena witnesses and documents on its own. Once the grand jury hears the evidence, it votes to indict or to not indict, based on whether there is “probable cause” to believe the defendant is guilty.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. A prosecutor

A prosecutor is ethically bound to indict someone, only upon the belief, he or she can prove their case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That's where the phrase knowing something and proving something are often not the same thing.

[ElementaryPenguin]

3. He had only just seized Roger Stone's computer, etc.

How could they even know what was provable at that point as far as a Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. ? And clearly, Trump is an accessory after the fact!

18 U.S. Code § 3. Accessory after the fact
U.S. Code

Authorities (CFR)

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 99–646, § 43, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3601; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3502, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4921; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §§ 330011(h), 330016(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2145, 2148.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. All I am saying is at the point where the prosecutor decides to try his or case or not

All I am saying is at the point where the prosecutor decides to try his or case or not he or she needs to be convinced he or she can win a conviction.

[ElementaryPenguin]

6. I understand. Thanks, I appreciate the info.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Because even if a grand jury finds probable cause to indict,

prosecutors won't proceed with the case unless they believe they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that will persuade a jury to convict. Even an ordinary felony arrest requires probable cause, and many arrests never result in trials at all - let alone convictions.

[ElementaryPenguin]

5. Thanks for the info, but...

In this case I'm not that interested in prosecutors demonstrating their unimpeachable ethics - we all can see in plain sight that Trump and his minions have been working with the Russians to subvert or democracy - and sovereignty - and we won't survive as a democracy if we can't root this gangster out of there! And fast!!

I got a feeling that plenty of poor defendants have been prosecuted with far less evidence!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. I'm in favor of unimpeachable ethics. When you start cutting corners

you don't have a reliable legal system. And on a more practical level, you're likely to lose your case on appeal.

[ElementaryPenguin]

8. You're probably right...

But I don't think Mueller needed to make a case against Trump that would need to be proven - Trump could be pressured to resign before being impeached.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Trump isn't as smart as Nixon but is much more of an egomaniac.

He will not resign - not only because he's an egomaniac but because he knows the minute he walks away from the WH he'll probably be indicted for financial crimes by the Manhattan DA's office, over which Barr's DoJ has no control.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. It's not only ethics. No lawyer wants to lose.

[ElementaryPenguin]

15. That's undoubtedly true, but the stakes this time

Were just a little higher than that!!

[pnwmom]

17. He's following the law, and the Special Counsel regulations that bind him.

Blame the regulations, not Mueller.

[soryang]

10. One needs to have a prima facie case to go forward.

This is enough to survive a motion to dismiss at a preliminary hearing. One hasn't yet heard the defense factual presentations or arguments at trial, so whether a case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt or not is up to the ultimate finder of fact, whether judge or jury.

The fact is that the prosecutor may think he has a case provable beyond a reasonable doubt and in some cases that may be affected adversely by pre-trial motions or other matters he may either have misjudged or matters of which he may not be cognizant. It's a best guess based upon the prosecutor's judgment. An aggressive prosecutor goes forward with a prima facie case unless political factors or other extra-judicial factors are affecting his judgment. If it later becomes apparent that proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be achieved, he will simply take a dismissal.

[ElementaryPenguin]

11. Thanks, soryang

[soryang]

14. Actually I have made an error

At the preliminary hearing probable cause is enough. However, I'm thinking as a practical matter before trial the prosecutor does make sure he has a prima facie case or he may be embarrassed at the end of his presentation of the evidence at trial if the judge directs a verdict for failure to make a prima facie case.

I've actually not seen a prosecutor proceed as far as to empanel a jury at trial with just enough evidence to support probable cause. It's too risky. They don't like to lose trials.

[triron]

12. That's why Barr doesn't want congress to see the GJ stuff.

[pnwmom]

16. Unfortunately, his job wasn't to uncover wrongdoing -- it was to prosecute crimes.

If he didn't think he had the evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then he wasn't supposed to prosecute it.

Unfortunately, the special counsel regs seem to have this giant loophole that allows the collected original evidence not to be sent to the House for its own determination of what it might need in impeachment.