This instruction eliminates any notion of impartiality and due process for the target of a complaint - it requires that jurors prejudge the complaint. By requiring jurors to consider "all allegations in the complaint liberally construed in favor of the complainant," the amendment mandates unfairness against the accused. And it leaves the door open for complainants to keep suing if they think jurors fail on this point.
Our response:
The death of due process??? It is obvious that the "Club" does not understand the basic rules of pleading and practice on which this challenged instruction (in ¶15 of Amendment E) is based. They complain that Amendment E, "by requiring jurors to consider 'all allegations in the complaint liberally construed in favor of the complainant' ... mandates unfairness against the accused." The truth is this: the requirement is basic "hornbook" law. Take for instance, "the complaint must be 'liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff,' who must be granted the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged." Schuler v. United States, 199 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979). See also "The complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all the facts in the complaint must be taken as true." Brown v. Nationsbank Corp. 188 F3d 579, 585 (5th Cir.1999). We did not, ladies and gentlemen, make up this language in Amendment E's paragraph 15 out of thin air. It is established law!
It is not about "prejudging" a complaint at all! It is about viewing the evidence presented from the record that determines the truth of the allegations. Their contention that we are "leav[ing] the door open for complainants to keep suing if they think jurors fail on this point" is actually challenging established procedural law already on the books. Furthermore, the middle of paragraph 15 states that at the end of the SGJ process, "the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days." [emphasis added]. There is no allowance for complainants to "keep suing" in any given case-- the determination of the SGJ is final!