"means some meaningful threshold has been passed."

In UK we've been putting innocent people in jail for 20 years, because of bugs in accounting software. It was going unnoticed and noone would believe them untill recently. We are talking hundreds of people.

If it happened to a single person, noone would ever find oit the truth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/0138cd7d-967...

This Financial Times article is paywalled, and, moreover, the FT didn't actually do any of the investigative journalism required to show this. Private Eye, however, did, and their report is free online: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-i... -- Private Eye was very good at banging the drum for many years and eventually the mainstream media cottoned on and -- following that -- several miscarriages of justice were reversed.

Note that in Britain, following a Tory amendment to the law, you can only get legal aid if you have assets less then £37.5k -- so if you own a home, and are charged (incorrectly!) with criminal proceedings, which you then win, expect to sell it to pay the legal bills. Once you win, you'll get...nothing. No fees. Just a "release the defendant from the dock" and you're good to go. If you get imprisoned, and THEN are found innocent later on, maybe, say, 30 years later (as has happened!) expect to get....nothing. I really recommend "The Secret Barrister" both as a book and a blog. Nobody stands up for funding criminal justice properly -- because what politician wants to support the rights of the accused? -- but it's badly breaking. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/02/02/mr-gove-must-now-h...

Grand juries, in practice, mean approximately nothing.

We should always presume innocence when law enforcement makes an accusation.

What percentage of grand juries throw out the charges?

That’s not a meaningful number because in practice prosecutors don’t bring cases to grand juries where the evidence isn’t sufficient to indict.

Charges filed means they've pissed off someone powerful, no more no less. It's up to you to evaluate the evidence based on what's publicly known. Generally when the government doesn't show its evidence, it should be treated with extreme skepticism.

The DOJ press release had a link right at the bottom to the 47 page indictment “showing the evidence.” https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1347146/downl...

I don't mean necessarily in this case, but I did mean in general. However, simply pointing out a section heading isn't enough (and I didn't see anything on page 47). What do you think of the evidence they presented?

Additionally, grand juries are well known to simply be tools of the prosecution with >90% of grand jury presentations voting to indict, in part because the prosecutor can present whatever narrative they want, in secret, without any checks other than their conscience without a counter narrative.

I’m not pointing to page 47 I’m pointing out that there is 47 pages of the government describing the evidence it has. That’s typical for an indictment. The government doesn’t “in general” refuse to show the evidence. That’s just not how it works.

Grand juries aren’t “known to be tools of the prosecution.” That’s just something defense lawyers and public interest people say. A grand jury is just a group of ordinary people tasked with deciding whether there is enough evidence to even bring a case. The secrecy is there to protect the defendant as much as it’s there for the government. If the prosecutor’s case is weak, then the allegations don’t even become public. Grand juries do vote to indict at a very high rate. That’s because prosecutors only bring cases they know they can win (and indeed they have an ethical obligation not to bring cases they don’t think they can win).

There is a lot of misinformation about how the justice system works. I have seen it from the inside, working for a judge. These cases are buttoned up top to bottom. They’ll arrest a guy for robbing a store. They have him on security camera. They have tracking information from his cell phone. They have his text messages with the guy who he fenced the goods to. They searched his car and found stolen items.

Wrongful convictions are rare. The legal clinics that help wrongfully convicted people actually spend tremendous amounts of time screening cases to find ones that are meritorious. And a lot of those are from the era before DNA testing came into routine use. See: https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&con...

> Based on a careful review of the available empirical literature, it is possible to assemble the component parts of a wrongful conviction rate calculation by looking at error rates at trial, the ratio of wrongful convictions obtained through trials versus plea bargains, and the percentage of cases resolved through pleas. Combining empirically based estimates for each of these three factors, a reasonable (and possibly overstated) calculation of the wrongful conviction rate appears, tentatively, to be somewhere in the range of 0.016%–0.062%

Prosecutors aren't supposed to publicize their evidence as doing so is prejudicial to the defense. Of course, they sometimes do so, precisely for that effect.