Hmmm…I wonder who’ll play Jennifer in the Lifetime movie?
If this developing story from Seattle was a Lifetime Network movie, I would regard it as proof positive that LMN was running out of plausible plots. Since it appears to be real, I regard it as proof positive that life is running out of plausible plots.
Meet the Grants. They make fun couple David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell look like Mike and Carol Brady. Described as a Seattle “power couple”, he’s a successful lawyer, and she’s city prosecutor. He’s also an accused serial rapist.
Dan Grant faces seven charges of raping Chinese women working as massage therapists, and another charge for first-degree burglary. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The chances that there is sufficient evidence to charge a Seattle lawyer as a serial rapist and that the evidence is nonetheless erroneous are slim, as are the chances that the police would charge the husband of a prosecutor without an air-tight case. Still, the word alleged needs to be attached to all of this. This isn’t just alleged, however: a recently released search warrant shows that prosecutor Jennifer Grant moved her husband’s SUV from in front of the massage parlor where he allegedly raped one of the Chinese women to a location far away from both the parlor and the Grants’ home. Gee, thanks, honey! Now why would she do that? The Good Wife Prosecutor swears that she took no evidence from the SUV except a garage key card, but a search warrant affidavit indicates that police believed that the vehicle contained a knife, condom wrappers, phony police ID and DNA.
Now Jennifer Grant has been reassigned to duties that “do not entail courtroom prosecutorial work,” pending further investigation.
Already this year, there has been a ridiculous tale about a demented prosecutor who knowingly shared his apartment with a drug dealer. He is headed to a different profession, as will both of the Grants—like making license plates—if he is guilty and if she, in contrast to her public statement that “Dan has always been a kind and gentle person the whole time I have known him,” knew about his unusual hobby and did nothing to stop him. Even in North Carolina (where John Edwards is still a member of the bar in good standing), raping women and helping your husband get away with it will terminate your law license.
Let us assume, however, that Dan is in fact a rapist, not just an alleged rapist, and Jennifer Grant really didn’t know about it. After all, Ted Bundy lived in Seattle, and his wife didn’t know he was killing women—maybe it’s something in the coffee. Let’s also assume that Mrs. Grant moved the SUV away from the scene of a rape and far from their home for innocent reasons. (She says she moved the SUV far from their home because the Grants were being “hounded by the media.” Okay…)
Could she possibly continue as a city prosecutor under these conditions? The resolution may have similarities to the Kevin Clash situation, where a children’s TV show puppeteer loses his ability to hold the trust of his audience as a result of factors beyond his control. Prosecutors are the nerve center of law enforcement; the public has to believe that they are honest, smart, competent, diligent, dedicated, courageous and responsible. If they don’t believe that, the public will not feel safe. If a prosecutor could live with a serial rapist—love, cherish and obey— a serial rapist, without suspecting a thing, what does that suggest about that prosecutor’s acumen and judgment? What does that suggest to the public about a district attorney’s office that would employ such a prosecutor? The duty of maintaining the public’s trust would dictate, I think, that even if Jennifer Grant is innocent of any involvement in or enabling of her husbands alleged crimes, she cannot be a prosecutor.
___________________________________
Sources:
Graphic: KIROTV
Ethics Alarms 
She shouldn’t be a prosecutor after moving the vehicle. That action gives the appearance of knowing something was going on and trying to shield her husband from the consequences of his actions. If she hadn’t done that, I think most people would have accepted her as another of his victims.
I agree with that statement 100% I have done things I am not proud with because I was involved with a criminal but at the time, I was a house wife. Jennifer however, knew she was tampering with evidence simply by moving the car and not reporting it immediately to authorities. Clearly, she has not cooperated with authorities properly and has not chosen the high moral road. It is plausible that she is a victim who is aware and/or is afraid of her husband and that is something very real to consider. In either case, taking some time away from her job to talk to a professional should be a part of the process.
She should at least be put on unpaid leave until this is resolved. A different prosecutor should convene a grand jury to address the charges against such a sweet hubby. Just her tampering with evidence should have her disbarred; and the number complaints against her husband should at least be enough for grand jury consideration. License plates, here we come!
This is Washington State. It’s just a colder, watered down version of California. All will depend on how strong their political connections are.
I have known Jennifer Johnson Grant since she was 12 years old. If you people knew this woman…anything at all about who she is…you would be ashamed of the nasty, prurient, trash you have all written, here. This is a truly
honorable and decent woman. You need to ask yourselves what awful thing
lurks inside you, to want you to condem an innocent person for your own egotistical posturing. For shame on the lot of you!
What a silly, posturing, useless comment. Did she move the car, or not? Why did such a wonderful woman marry a rapist? If you have a substantive argument, make it. “This woman who is pledged to protect the public and who moved her husband’s car from the scene of a crime is innocent because I played Candyland with her” isn’t an argument, and name-calling forever won’t make it one.
Mr Marshall,
Posturing? Silly? Useless?
She moved HER own vehicle several weeks AFTER her husband was arrested. The police never gave her instructions not to move it, and never asked her where it was. She had no idea that it was an issue, to move it. Is that a crime? Would you have left your car parked in a random place, indefinitely? You people prefer to believe that she rushed over to where the car was parked and hid it, to conceal a crime, immediately after it happened. That’s because you choose to jump to a negative conclusion, since it is more interesting, and gives you a chance to judge someone else harshly.
Why did she marry a rapist? There are two elements to this question that verify my attitude towards you critics: (a) Mr Grant had never been arrested for, or convicted of rape, previous to her marriage to him. How was she supposed to predict that more than a decade into her marriage, he would be charged with such a crime? (b) Guilty, or not, Mr Grant has not yet been convicted of a crime, therefore, he is, as of the moment,, to be considered innocent. Please ask yourself why you need to spend the interim time castigating a mother of three children, who was attempting to continue her life as usual. You know absolutely nothing about Jennifer. She is a very honorable person. And, for your information, I did not “play candyland” with her. I am old enough to be her grandmother.
I would like you, in all your brilliance, to explain to me just what she did that was so wrong, and also, why you try to pass yourself off as someone who knows something you just do not know.
Patricia, the post is over a year old, and I confess I had forgotten about the Grants, and initially had no clue as to what you were complaining about. Now that I’ve read the post again, I still have no clue, as you appear not to have read it herself.
The primary message of the post is that she has no business being a prosecutor while the matter of her husband’s guilt is in question. The entire last section of my post accepts the proposition that she did nothing wrong (though I personally doubt it, but we shall find out), but that if she did nothing wrong and was living with a serial rapist, neither I nor any other rational person should trust her judgment as a prosecutor. A lawyer as an advocate has to convince the jury that she is astute, alert and analytical. Do you really think marrying a rapist and not noticing that he is one is consistent with those traits?
All the rest of your assumptions and criticisms are either imaginary or irrelevant, or misguided. As to the car—I was a prosecutor, and I know damn well you don’t mess with anything connected to the case that could possibly be evidence-worthy, and that if the accused is personally involved with you in any way, you absolutely do not interact with anything remotely connected to the case, and the car was. Whether the police told her not to touch the car is completely beside the point. If the police TOLD her to move the car, she should have insisted it be searched first. That was suspicious, and it was stupid, and any lawyer would tell her so to her face. That she is a mother does not excuse her from professional criticism. I don’t have to know her to make the observations I did regarding the appointed facts. You’re biased, I’m not.
And I played Candyland with MY grandmother, just for the record.
You may want to go check out KIRO tv and the rest of the news stations and you will find that now Jennifer Grant has been turned into a Judge. Even though she resigned the prosecutor office after a ethics report was turned in
. http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/danford-grants-wife-working-judge-seattle/nccDw/