Schrödinger’s indictment has both two and three counts (but also neither two nor three counts).

They seem to be arguing the grand jury foreperson’s testimony should be conclusive and is unambiguous even though they know it is in fact not.

I think that's the sensible read of the filing. But, on my read, they aren't QUITE "claiming the grand jury *did* vote on it". . . . They're saying that the transcript / official record establish that they did vote on it. There's an (important) shred of daylight between the two, maybe?

Right. Or any kind of affidavit/declaration from those who made representations yesterday.

“No, I mean yes. Whatever answer is better for us”

“Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?”

also, omg those poor jurors. just doing their civic duty and now this mess.

like...can the judge call the grand jurors to testify!?!?

Maybe it is time to ask the Grand Jury itself.

Wow