WASHINGTON - eTradeWire -- Today the New York Times is reporting that Grand Juries in D.C. Reject Wave of Charges Under Trump's Crackdown (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/06/us/trump-dc-...)

While respecting the fundamental exercise of this rarely used legal power called "Grand Jury Nullification," public interest law professor John Banzhaf - who has not only written on well known cases of the related and more widely known concept of "jury nullification," but also correctly predicted the outcome of many notorious cases based upon that principle - warns that its overuse, especially in situations of extreme and dangerous violence by those protesting immigration enforcement, could endanger the lives of officers enforcing federal law.

More on eTradeWire News

• U.S. Nonprofit Launches First Digital Birth Identity Passport to Protect Children From Birth
• Independent Prostate Health Resource to Help Men Make Informed Supplement Decisions
• Centrum of Concave Souls Tarot
• Owner to Dueño Revolutionizes Homeownership in Memphis with Accessible Owner-to-Owner Financig
• All American Home Renovators: Transforming Bathrooms into Masterpieces, One Home at a Time

Refusing to indict in what has been jokingly referred to as "Assault With A Breadly Weapon" in D.C. has now spread to more serious risks to law enforcement personnel and to other jurisdictions.  If it's applied in cases where juries are asked to convict someone charged with a crime related to ICE and other officers - known as  "Jury Nullification" - it could present a more serious threat likely to lead to increased toughness if not ruthlessness by those charged with enforcing immigration laws.

Although judges routinely tell jurors - both those on a grand jury and those in a criminal trial - that they must follow the law and put aside any personal feelings regarding the cases, jurors may of course balk and vote their individual feelings; a right upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to trial jurors, and apparently also inherent in the powers given to members of a grand jury.

As the Supreme Court has explained (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/463/418), the grand jury "serves the "dual function of determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and of protecting citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions." [emphasis added]

More on eTradeWire News

• Ariana Lyons, Evaluates Insurance Denial Impacts for Metro Atlanta
• IHANA Global Introduces DDP Delivery and Net 90 ROG Payment Terms for US Retailers and Wholesalers
• MGM Resorts International Appoints Grant Michael Leingang to Lead Intellectual Property
• Learn Window Tint in Montreal – April 25–26 with Tint Academy x Skins Wrap
• Bold Beauty Project Celebrates Anniversary with Collaborative Exhibition at FIU's Miami Beach Urban Studios

They would also be important, and more likely to occur, as the current administration increasingly seeks to greatly expand law enforcement by federal personnel into so-called "sanctuary cities," especially as local officials strongly oppose the influx of federal law enforcement officers and even national guard troops, and use accusatory if not even inflammatory language in addressing local residents.

But to the extent that grand jurors rely upon the latter justification, they may refuse to issue felony indictments even where a much more serious and perhaps even life-threatening assault occurs, warns Banzhaf.

http://banzhaf.net/  jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com  @profbanzhaf