In the headline reports there is someone termed a 'special prosecutor'. The serious 'newspaper of record' The Times tells what he is doing and why but has evidently assumed that its readers are familiar with the job. (Sometimes they expect too much. The other daily paper we take would only explain it if the explanation could be illustrated with a picture of a topless girl, which event has not yet happened; believe me I've looked )

So: How is the prosecutor appointed and by whom? Is he a regular employee in some prosecution department who is simply assigned to the case? Who decides what cases are worthy of his attention? How are his actions instigated: there seems to have been no police involvement in this case of Libby and the spy, so does he act on reference by a member of the public or somebody in , or some committee in, the legislature?

He is reported to have questioned potential witnesses and suspects. This makes him sound like a French magistrate, who takes over the investigation of crimes and possible crimes and summons anyone he or she thinks may help (These people are obliged by law to answer the questions; silence is not a response that leaves them at liberty )

A subsidiary question is that of the Grand Jury.At one time, in the distant past in England,it was the local people who formed an investigating body, a grand jury. As soon as there was any complaint of crime they had the suspect brought before them and they decided whether the case was fit for trial by the visiting circuit judge ( Judge of assize) with another jury, whenever he would reach the county town . Originally they were more of investigating body than simply judges of whether there was a prima facie case prepared for them and presented by some prosecuting authority.

Here , in the instant case, there is mention of a grand jury. Who calls it, who decides on the need for it and when? Does it have any role in summoning evidence or is it entirely passive? Other cases of an obvious criminal nature, with considerable police involvement, , such as Michael Jackson's, showed this kind of jury to be just like the grand juries we last had (they were abolished in the 1960s). The police investigated, a prosecution department assembled the evidence and presented it and the jury decided simply whether there was a prima facie case. (This role is now taken by magistrates)

"The other daily paper we take would only explain it if the explanation could be illustrated with a picture of a topless girl..." FredPuli

I know which paper I would subscribe to!

Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's appointment as special counsel was made on Dec. 30, 2003, after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself. Attorney General Ashcroft gave him specific authority to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity," according to another letter from Comey posted on the Web site. (Washington Post)

Note: from the Attorney General Website: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.

Dwight

Thanks. The Times has now said that this special prosecutor was appointed by President Bush in 2003. It appears that here that may be shorthand for 'appointed by the Attorney General'.

The office of U.S. Attorney General was , presumably,closely modelled on the identically named office in England; his powers and duties in prosecuting and advising match those of Her Majesty's Attorney General. Here, as there, it is a 'political appointment', in that it is de facto one made by the incumbent Prime Minister. He or she appoints a senior lawyer who is understood to be a supporter of his or her own party.

I see now, from another post on AP, that this man was the US attorney for a State, he was nominated by the President and the nomination approved by Congress. So he may have been someone suggested by the Attorney who recused himself but he is ultimately an appointee approved by the Legislature.(Must remember not to think of The Times and "shorthand" in the same moment . They'd be most upset. )

Fred - A special prosecutor is someone appointed by the Attorney General or Congress to investigate wrongdoing by a member of the federal government when the Department of Justice (who's head, the attorney general, is appointed by the president) has a real or apparent conflict of interest. The President cannot directly fire the special prosecutor, but the Attorney General can, so the conflict of interest is clearly not completely removed.

The grand jury decides whether or not charges are to be brought. The prosecutor basically makes his case and uses their authority to investigate. The defense cannot call witnesses and is not generally present when the prosecution's witnesses are called. The grand jury does have some power to investigate on its own - to question witnesses and issue subpoenas even in the prosecutor's absence if they see fit - but they are usually more passive. Not all cases are brought beforee grand juries - different states have different rules for when they are used ad many (I think I heard its about half) don't use them at all, but the Constitution requires that they be used in case of "capital, or otherwise infamous crime" brought by the federal government.