15 Missing Questions From Today's Times Of Trenton Front-Page Story

Obviously stung by my OpEd from Tuesday and expressions of similar (but not-enough-media-oriented) criticism in newspapers across the state, Mercer County Prosecutor Joseph L. Bocchini Jr. came out with all guns blazing Sunday in the Times of Trenton.

He brought along staff, including the assistant who presented the Rider University case to the grand jury and his public affairs person.

In the Sunday above-the-fold banner story, two former New Jersey Attorneys General also were quoted about the circumstances around the indictment of the university administrators.

The facts, as Bocchini and Assistant Prosecutor Tom Meidt laid them out, were appropriate to the former AGs whom the reporter called after the visit. They essentially stated that the prosecutor did the right thing by allowing the administrators to be indicted, not thwarting the grand jury, and then asking for a dismissal in three weeks.

Unfortunately, and strangely, I was not called for comment by reporter Darryl Isherwood. I should have been called for a response, or better yet invited to ask some questions directly when the prosecutor brought his people to the newsroom.

Unfortunately, there was no newsroom grand jury present to demand answers and the prosecutor went unchallenged on the reason for my original OpEd: the human toll this took and the poor legal media relations that accompanied it.

The public still needs to know whether the office a) rushed the indictment or b) loosely supervised a grand jury, allowing it to quietly slip in the two indictments. I'm not a lawyer, don't know anything about the case and will wait to see what happens. But I don't think we know much more about the circumstances from this Sunday story.

Missing in the Times story are are at least 15 questions about the case and the media mugging that I believe two administrators suffered. Some of this information may never be public since the grand jury process is secret, or its office work product, but I'll pose them anyway:

1. You were quoted as being "taken aback" by the indictments. Is that still accurate and, if so, were you hands off in terms of direct contact with this grand jury, some others or all of them?
2. If you had presented or appeared before this grand jury were you still taken aback or could you see the indictment coming?
3. While prosecutors cannot tell a grand jury what to do specifically (although I am sure they can help point the way) did you or Mr. Meidt in any way convey to them that indicting the administrators could be a legal misstep, inasmuch as a conviction would not be possible?
4. Could the grand jury, instead have issued a presentment or some similar statement in which the university administration would be roundly excoriated which would not lead to the embarrassment of having to dismiss charges after trashing the administrators?
5. If the indictment was returned on a Friday, and you were "taken aback" could you not have sought a sealing order just until Monday in the interests of justice?
6. Did the news conference or announcement have to be announced on Friday? Could the indictment be filed with the court at closing time Friday, no comment made and a news event held on Monday?
7. Why did you have to hold a news event? Could you not have released a statement with a copy of the indictment and left it at that?
8. Did the office get daily transcripts of this or any other grand jury testimony?
9. Was a "war room" assembled immediately after the "taken aback" indictment of the two administrators, so your staff could immediately start scrutinizing the matter over the weekend in order to address it on Monday with a statement/explanation?
10. Since you were "taken aback" why were your comments not shaped to indicate that you were now carefully going to look at the indictment to see whether the charging of the administrators, since it is the first of its kind ever, should be examined?
11. When were the transcripts delivered to your office and how soon after that were they carefully examined by you or others?
12. I have not seen the dismissal motion. Was it with or without prejudice?
13. When was the decision to dismiss made? How soon before the motion was filed with the judge?
14. Why, during the Times interview published today is no one from the Prosecutor's office apologizing to the administrators?.
15. Why is your Web site (Sunday at 6 p.m.) still presenting the indictment news release from Aug 3rd without correction or a new notice about the administrators above it?

Then men and women for whom I handled public affairs, federal and state prosecutors, were sensitive to the media aspect of their positions. The government has awesome powers and, along with it a responsibility for transparency whenever possible. And when it disseminates news designed to deter illegal activity it should be fairly disseminated.

In this case I think the awesome power was the media and the office bowed to it, not to justice. But that's just my opinion. I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV and all I know is what I read in the papers.

• By the way, what's the statute of limitations for this crime in New Jersey?
• Did the indictment have to come so quickly? Were college administrators in danger of fleeing the jurisdiction? The young victim in this tragedy died just five months ago.

The school year was starting and it was a good time to make some headlines. Now is a good time to retract them.

... at least edit the Web site.