
$873.42
1
1

1 market tracked

No data available
| Market | Platform | Price |
|---|---|---|
![]() | Poly | 20% |
Trader mode: Actionable analysis for identifying opportunities and edge
This market will resolve to “Yes” if any Federal or State jurisdiction of the United States formally charges or otherwise announces a criminal indictment of former Department of Justice Special Prosecutor Jack Smith by March 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. For the purposes of this market the District of Columbia and any county, municipality, or other subdivision of a State shall be included within the definition of a State. The primary resolution source for
AI-generated analysis based on market data. Not financial advice.
$873.42
1
1
This prediction market asks whether former Department of Justice Special Prosecutor Jack Smith will be formally charged or indicted by any federal, state, or local jurisdiction in the United States by March 31, 2026. Jack Smith served as the special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to oversee two major criminal investigations related to former President Donald Trump. The first investigation examined Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving the White House and his alleged obstruction of efforts to retrieve them. The second investigation focused on Trump's actions and attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, culminating in the January 6 Capitol attack. Smith's high-profile prosecutions have made him a central figure in American political and legal discourse. Interest in this market stems from the intense political polarization surrounding these cases and the unprecedented nature of prosecuting a former president and leading candidate for the same office. Some political figures, including Trump himself, have publicly called for investigations or retribution against Smith, framing the prosecutions as politically motivated. This has led to speculation about whether Republican-led jurisdictions or future administrations might pursue charges against the prosecutor, testing the norms of the American legal system's independence.
The appointment of a special counsel to investigate a president or high-ranking official has historical precedent, but the context of investigating a former president who is actively campaigning for re-election is without modern parallel. The independent counsel law, which expired in 1999, led to high-profile investigations like Ken Starr's probe into President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Since then, attorneys general have appointed special counsels under existing DOJ regulations, as with Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The political aftermath of such investigations has often been contentious. Following the Mueller investigation, then-Attorney General William Barr was investigated by a district attorney in Washington, D.C., for potential campaign finance violations related to his 2020 election fundraising, though no charges were filed. This demonstrates that prosecutors themselves can become subjects of scrutiny. The concept of a 'tit-for-tat' prosecution, where a new administration investigates the prosecutors from the prior administration, challenges the traditional norm of Justice Department independence from political cycles. This norm was tested after the 2020 election when some Trump allies called for investigations into officials involved in the earlier Russia probe.
The prospect of a prosecutor being charged for work done in an official capacity strikes at the core principle of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law. If a prosecutor can face criminal charges for bringing a case against a political figure, it could have a profound chilling effect on future law enforcement actions against powerful individuals. This could erode public trust in the legal system's ability to function without political interference. The outcome of this prediction market question is a barometer for perceived political risk within the American justice system. A 'Yes' resolution would signal a significant escalation in the politicization of law enforcement, potentially inspiring similar retaliatory actions in state jurisdictions across the country. It would also immediately become a central issue in the 2026 midterm elections and beyond, framing debates about justice, power, and accountability.
As of late 2024, no federal, state, or local jurisdiction has publicly announced a formal criminal investigation into Jack Smith. The federal cases he brought against Donald Trump are ongoing, with the election interference case facing appeals on presidential immunity and the classified documents case delayed indefinitely by Judge Cannon. Politically, some members of Congress, including Representative Jim Jordan, have demanded documents and testimony from the Justice Department regarding Smith's investigation, framing it as oversight of potential misconduct. Former President Trump continues to make public statements criticizing Smith, but no formal legal action has been initiated.
Legally, prosecutors have broad immunity for actions taken in their official capacity. To bring a successful case, a prosecutor would need to demonstrate that Smith acted outside the scope of his duties, with clear evidence of criminal intent such as bribery or fabrication of evidence, which is an exceptionally high legal bar.
Any potential charge would likely allege an abuse of legal process, such as malicious prosecution, selective prosecution, or obstruction of justice. These are state-level crimes in some jurisdictions and would require proving Smith acted with an improper motive, not merely that someone disagreed with his prosecutorial decisions.
If Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, his appointed Attorney General could theoretically direct the Justice Department to investigate Smith. However, longstanding DOJ guidelines advise against prosecuting individuals for acts taken in prior official capacities without clear evidence of a crime, to avoid the appearance of political retribution.
There is no modern precedent for a federal special counsel or prosecutor being criminally charged for work on a case against a political figure. Historical investigations into prosecutors, like the 2010 inquiry into Bush administration lawyers over torture memos, did not result in criminal charges.
A state with a Republican-controlled government where Donald Trump performed strongly in 2020, such as Florida or Texas, would be a plausible candidate. These states have attorneys general who have previously launched investigations aligned with national Republican priorities.
Educational content is AI-generated and sourced from Wikipedia. It should not be considered financial advice.

No related news found
Add this market to your website
<iframe src="https://predictpedia.com/embed/C-pbPT" width="400" height="160" frameborder="0" style="border-radius: 8px; max-width: 100%;" title="Jack Smith charged by March 31?"></iframe>