Robert Weisberg, a professor at Stanford University’s law school, highlighted how unlike in a regular trial, lawyers cannot use preemptory challenges, so Boutros’ line of questioning was outrageous.

“It’s none of his damn business,” Weisberg told Courthouse News. “You know, in a regular trial, of course, the prosecution and the defense and the judge are all allowed, to some extent, to question potential jurors, trial jurors, to help determine who is going to sit on the jury, so there were challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. There’s not such thing in a grand jury, especially if it’s done solely by the prosecutor.”

Weisberg mentioned the grand jury rules of New York as a good model, in part because the evidentiary rules follow the state’s criminal evidence rules, unlike in other federal grand juries. Others agreed, and hoped the chaos from the collapse of the Broadview Six case can result in some meaningful reform.