How does it protect the rest of us if "well defended people" means "those able to afford better lawyers"?

same question here...

Because only the well-funded can establish precedent. At least until Dobson, precedent was generally applicable, respected by lower courts and enforced on police and prosecutors.

Interesting, but that being said, if the defense does prevail, the precedents that’ll be set will likely broaden the range of shady things that can be paid for during a political campaign. Probably not a good thing for average folks.

Precedent can be and is open to change - and should be in the case of bad precedent - and did you mean Dobbs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...

Admittedly, I thought I was being concise, but edited my post into a real head-scratcher.

I was thinking along the lines of protections such as presumption of innocence, and burden of proof, as making it hard to convict people. But it does require competent defense to enforce those things.

An example of easy to convict is countries where prominent dissidents are arrested for nebulous "corruption," and basically stand no chance.

Ah, I see now. Good point.

I love common law but one aspect that seems inescapably (though perhaps not wholly) negative is the different levels of access to justice that come with different levels of wealth.

Since there is the concept of sealed indictment, why are all the indictments not sealed (or none of them)?

I guess this is to preserve the person that is accused (because an accusation is easier to make than to defend, given the visibility decided by the media, supporters, etc)) - do why some are more preserved then others?

Since the topic is a hot one, please note that I am from France and have no stakes nor interest in the political discussion, I am genuinely interested in that concept of this seal which we do not have AFAICT.

Most indictments are never sealed (if the accused has been arrested on other charges, for example, there isn't much use in trying to keep it secret from the accused), and the ones that are always become unsealed in order to go to trial. There are a number of reasons to file an indictment under seal - ranging from juvenile records to managing flight risks of the accused.

The one that is probably most pertinent in this case has to do with testimony in front of a grand jury: both encouraging it to occur, and preventing it from being tampered with by the accused.

Ahhhh, the seal is there to keep the details secret for everyone, including the accused. OK, now I understand the reason behind this mechanism (especially that the indictments are unsealed when when going to trial).

Thank you for the precisions

> I am from France and have no stakes nor interest in the political discussion

The impact of U.S. politics goes well beyond its borders.

Yes, but when reading the comments I see a lot of US political discussions about whether this is a problem or not, Whether D Trump is ok or not, etc. I am not interested in these and did not want my question about what a seal is to diverge on whether this is a good thing or not to seal (or not seal)

> Since there is the concept of sealed indictment, why are all the indictments not sealed (or none of them)?

There are a variety of reasons to seal an indictment (which will only remain sealed until the defendant is arrested), one of which os to facilitate arrest and avoid flight, another is to protect information in the indictment for as long as possible, especially if there is information that may be sensitive to ongoing investigations beside that of the person indicted, or if there is concern for the safety of victims/witnesses identified in the indictment.

> I guess this is to preserve the person that is accused

No, it is not. It is mostly to protect against actions of that person or their confederates, not to protect them.

Thank you - as mentioned in a parallel comment, I was completely mistaken about the reason for the seal. Now this is clear. Thanks.

Trump has a habit of not paying his bills. This has led him to complain in the past year that he is having trouble hiring attorneys.