<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the news this week has been law firms using ChatGPT as a paralegal. Comments indicate that it is really good at that task.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So I went in and experimented. I came away with the attitude that ChatGPT is an excellent law professor. It knows all the details on grand juries and Brady material.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>For instance, the case of Brady vs Maryland was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1963. It requires the prosecutor in a criminal case to hand over any exculpatory evidence it has to the defense. The defense is not required to hand over incriminating evidence to the prosecution. We intentionally stack the deck in favor of the defendant in the USA.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>OK but what about a grand jury? Those are different, for there is no defense in a grand jury. Those are assembled by the prosecution, it has up to 23 jurors and only a simple majority is required to allow a prosecutor to take the case to trial.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I wanted to know if the Brady rules apply to a grand jury. What I learned is that the prosecutor is obligated to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. If they fail to do that, then the judge in the trial can dismiss the case with prejudice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Fascinating stuff. Thanks ChatGPT. I would really not want to be a paralegal today.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>