The clay is a special kind that can be shaped into a thick layer around the meat, almost like a shell. This shell of clay helps to trap the moisture and heat inside, so the meat can cook slowly and stay really juicy and flavorful.

After the meat is cooked, the clay shell is carefully broken open and the meat is taken out. The meat inside should be really tender and tasty because it was protected by the clay while it cooked.

This is called "clay-baking" or "clay-pot cooking" and it's a special way to cook meat that has been used in many different cultures around the world for thousands of years

An indictment is formally when charges 'stick' after being heard and voted on by a grand jury (which itself is mostly a rubber stamp - I've been a prosecutor for over a year and haven't had a single charge dismissed. Essentially the prosecution gets to 'cheat' at this step and all sorts of things unacceptable in a trial are fair game here and the defense doesn't get to put on a case - the standard of proof is also low)

From here things change depending on jurisdiction a little bit procedurally but ultimately the next step is more investigating where both sides start interviewing witnesses and broadly 'digging around' as the sides posture for either going to trial or negotiating a different resolution (ie a plea but in some instances things like civil compromise is seen as 'good enough' for the prosecution to justify dropping the case)

If it sounds like an indictment is nothing but a rubber stamp procedural thing thats because it is. It exists solely because the monarchy in England used to quite literally abduct people on charges with no basis in fact and hold them pretty much until they decided to let the person out (if they ever felt like it) so the indictment was created to force the crown to show that there was SOME evidence of the charges being alleged

[deleted]

That’s a hard question to answer. The court (for the most part) is not involved in the grand jury proceeding. Obviously, however, representatives of the government likely believe the case is provable, or they wouldn’t be presenting the case to the grand jury.

[removed]

I will acknowledge you correct on all of your corrections of me.

My main point though, is that indictment does not mean that the court or government thinks you are guilty.

You are a knowledgeable person apparently. You agree with that point, correct?

[deleted]

I may be one of the few here that’s actually presented evidence to a grand jury.

Almost none of that is accurate. First, people aren’t “found innocent,” because the burden of proof is on the government. Defendants are either found guilty or not guilty. Not guilty and innocent are not the same thing.

Further, the defense virtually never directly participates in a grand jury proceeding.

Third, it’s not a trial. Not even close. Evidence is presented under oath to a grand jury, and it is almost never all of the evidence the government has. Generally, only probable cause that one or more offenses has been committed is the standard.

Testimony generated in the grand jury process is also largely irrelevant at the trial phase, except for impeachment purposes on rare occasions.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting.

Please search before submitting.

This question has already been asked on ELI5 multiple times.

If you need help searching, please refer to the Wiki.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Better answer than half the answers here that are definitely wrong, but presented as fact with no disclaimer.

Nice and succinct.

It's a little counterintuitive, but it's expanding into nothing. The universe is already infinite; an infinite volume can expand and remain the same size at the same time. This can ONLY happen when infinity is involved.

The base size for the asset is probably the biggest version. Expanding an image is harder to retain quality than shrinking an image. My assumption is that the same thing applies to this.

You're not wrong that pixels can get distorted, but the distortion when scaling down is very minor.

I had a law professor tell us repeatedly you could indict a ham sandwich. The reason being it means you could have committed a crime. Like it’s possible you did. It doesn’t mean you did or that there is great witnesses or evidence or that a trial will happen necessarily. It just means there is enough for a reasonable person to think you could have committed a crime. That’s why afterwards a trial usually will be presented if the DA can come up with charges based on what he/she thinks is suitable evidence to get a guilt verdict or to get the suspect to plea, Which is the usual outcome.

No. Indictment does not mean the court or government thinks you committed a crime. That is why indicted people are often found innocent. not guilty

The grand jury looks at the evidence and is told, assuming all this is true, and that the defense has nothing to disprove any of it and also has no evidence of its own, would you find this person guilty.

It is basically a faux trial with just prosecution and no defense to see if it is worth holding and actual trial. Grand jury trials are not held in most cases, generally only major ones or higher profile ones. It is obviously an unneeded expense, when they can hold a regular trial without one.

Being found guilty by a grand jury is then used as evidence in the actual trial. The jury is told that there is enough evidence to convict, assuming it is all true. That definitely can influence a jury. And can be worth the extra expense, and risk. The risk being that you have to basically prove your case twice then, because innocent by grand jury means no trial.

Edit: strikethrough because I will admit the parts I am wrong about. But don't want to be the guy that just deletes posts to save face.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations

• Discussion of fiction, gaming, fantasy, etc. are not allowed on ELI5 (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Mostly right. After an indictment a judge issues an arrest warrant and the police arrest the person and book them into jail. That's when the fingerprinting and mugshot take place.

After they're arrested they're arraigned, which is a fancy word for going to court so a judge can hear arguments from both sides to determine if the person should be remanded to jail without bail or if they are trustworthy enough to show up to trial.

At this stage the judge may revoke their passport, put them on house arrest, require them to wear a tracker at all times, or any number of things.

Trump, being extremely wealthy and owning private planes, is more than capable of fleeing the country. I would not be surprised if they revoked his passport, grounded his planes, and put him under house arrest.

I seriously doubt they would deny him bail.

In fact, he may spend no time in jail at all. Maybe a few minutes in a holding cell, as they'll probably take him to be booked at a police station then take him directly to his arraignment where he'll get out on bail.

My interpretation of expanding space is:

Imagine you have a box that contains the whole universe, and you are looking into it. Space expanding would be like zooming out, but the edges dont move. It still occupies the same box, but now there is more stuff inside of it. I'm sure someone can come along and explain how this doesn't work mathematically, but it's the only way I could try to comprehend it.

I completely agree!!

Haha. That’s totally fair. I’m not gonna lie, I had rage toward my boss earlier and had to smile through it. It mayyyyy have influenced my commentary. IWTA

yea i guess, i thought maybe tho the pixels will get all distorted and weird looking tho if just directly scaled

I'm in the car industry and proudly drive an 07 Toyota Matrix I'm going to drive into the ground before I buy another vehicle.

My co-workers are jockeying between who has the better cars and comparing between Audi's and BMWs and Mercedes. But they are just hemorrhaging money in car payments and insurance just so they can flex on their friends and family.

Pro-tip: literally no one gives a shit what you drive. If someone judges you for your ride, they are not an intelligent person whose opinion you should care about.

[removed]

Oh so you have a set that’s open on one end. That is really weird since you finished but there is no last number. It’s like the lamp version of this.