A Grand Jury Indictment is made up of 16-23 panel members and assembled after a federal investigation has begun. The process is secret and not administered by a judge or magistrate. It is a one- sided process. It does not follow rules of a trial. The prosecutor is not compelled to put forth evidence favorable to the subject and the subject has no opportunity for legal representation; this gives the prosecutor free reign and allows complete discretion from permitting the panel to hear only the information that they want them to recognize.

Since the rules of evidence are not enforced, a prosecutor can decide which evidence they will present to the panel and ask questions that would be considered leading and follow a line of questioning that would be deemed irrelevant, illegally obtained, and/or hearsay, and not admissible at trial. If the subject is not yet in custody at the time of the grand jury session (which he was not) they may not even know that this  hearing is going and are therefore not able or allowed to present contrary evidence or tell their side of the story. Ultimately, unable to defend themselves. Does that seem constitutional? The subject is not given access to testimony of prosecution until and if a regular trial commences.

Furthermore, the jurors are not isolated so they may be influenced based on media coverage, rumors, or their own personal biases. Please note: The government took over 3 months to obtain the Grand Jury Indictment meaning they could have had several attempts to gain a favorable or successful outcome. We will never as this is a secretive proceeding.

The government has spent over $10 million dollars of taxpayer money, over 30 months, to investigate this case, only to come up short and unable to present factual evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Menocal. In their investigation, they collected DNA samples, phone records, online and social media forensics, interviewed criminal witnesses to build a case, scoured for evidence and found no proof or facts to support any of the allegations in this case leading to the government lessening the original charges to simple misdemeanor charges in order to bring the case to closure. The case was based on he said – she said testimony with no supporting evidence by career criminals who lied under oath and coincidentally gained more recollection and clarity of their version of the story as time passed. When was the last time the government exhausted these resources to prosecute misdemeanor charges?

Despite having no criminal history, no history of any misconduct, no issues while on supervised release for 31 months , over 70 letters of support attesting to his character and over 50 individuals attending the sentencing hearing on his behalf, the judge issued the maximum sentence of 36 months. Ask yourself why?…. This was a politically driven case in a social climate where defunding the police and the me too movement rhetoric drove the process.