Does a counsel for suspects to be charged by the grand jury get to control the administration of oaths of the grand jurors and the choice of the prosecutor presenting the case?

In an interesting turn of events, the South Carolina Attorney general "fired" the special prosecutor that he assigned, after his own recusal, to investigate corruption in the General Assembly of South Carolina.

South Carolina Attorney General clearly is disqualified from investigating or prosecuting such a case - becase SC AG represents the General Assembly and each and every one of its members (if they are sued for constitutional violations resulting from their criminal acts).

For that reason, SC AG has no authority to "fire" a special prosecutor assigned to that case.

But, here it is, that happened.

And, the courageous special prosecutor actually took SC AG to court to verify his authority to fire him.

The special prosecutor reportedly wrote in his petition to the S.C. Supreme Court that the South Carolina Attorney General (the counsel for the subjects of investigation, members and/or employees of the state General Assembly) "has instructed Jim Parks, the clerk of the state grand jury, to refuse to administer the oath of office to special prosecutors so they can use the state grand jury".

Not too crooked, is it?

Imagine if a criminal defense attorney for a suspect is allowed to influence the grand jury proceedings in such a way?

That criminal defense attorney would be immediately disbarred and criminally prosecuted.

I will hold my breath whether that will happen to the S.C. A.G.

I will continue to cover this case.

Let's see what the Supreme Court of South Carolina will decide.

Stay tuned.