Is it true that in the state of New York with the grand jury and Alan Bragg they would convict a hamburger of murder
Executive summary
The claim that "in New York, with a grand jury and Alvin Bragg, they would convict a hamburger of murder" is a rhetorical exaggeration, not a factual assertion supported by reporting; New York grand juries are heavily influenced by prosecutors but operate under legal standards and secrecy, and the evidence shows prosecutors can and do bring serious, contested cases—examples include Alvin Bragg’s convening of a grand jury in the Trump hush‑money matter and subsequent criminal proceedings [1] [2]. While grand juries return indictments at high rates, that statistical reality does not mean the system would lawfully convict an inanimate object absent human actors or admissible evidence, and no credible source documents any literal "hamburger" conviction [3].
1. What the phrase is actually doing — rhetorical hyperbole vs. legal claim
The image of a hamburger being convicted is a rhetorical device aimed at accusing prosecutors of overreach or bias; the news reporting on Alvin Bragg frames real controversies about prosecutorial choices and outcomes — for instance, Bragg convened a grand jury early in his tenure to pursue the Stormy Daniels hush‑money investigation and later tried the case resulting in a high‑profile conviction [1] [4] — but the coverage nowhere supports a literal reading that the system convicts non‑sentient objects (reporting contains no instance of such a thing).
2. How grand juries actually work in New York and why critics use the indictment-rate argument
Grand juries in New York operate in secrecy with rules that typically favor the prosecutor: evidence standards and presentation are controlled by the prosecutor and studies and reporting note grand juries return indictments in a very high share of matters — often cited in reporting as roughly 95–99 percent — a statistic critics deploy to argue the institution is a rubber stamp [3]. That structural power helps explain political complaints about decisions to convene or not convene grand juries, such as Bragg’s choice to re‑open a long‑running "zombie" investigation into hush payments [2].
3. Alvin Bragg’s record and the competing narratives about prosecutorial restraint or activism
Reporting shows Bragg has both been praised for pursuing powerful defendants — his office secured convictions against Trump Organization entities and later prosecuted the former president on falsifying‑records counts — and criticized for his prosecutorial philosophy, including declining certain charges inherited from predecessors and announcing limits on prosecuting some minor offenses [2] [5] [6]. Supporters say those are principled reforms and a willingness to tackle difficult, novel cases; critics call them political or inconsistent—both viewpoints are well‑documented in the coverage [7] [8].
4. The gap between indictment and conviction — juries still decide guilt at trial
Even when a grand jury indicts, a trial jury ultimately decides guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; reporting on Bragg’s most consequential prosecutions emphasizes that a trial jury convicted Donald Trump on counts related to falsifying business records, a result Bragg’s defenders point to as vindication of prosecutorial judgment [8] [4]. Thus the indictment‑rate statistic does not equate to automatic guilt; it reflects the threshold for charging, not trial conviction.
5. What reporting does and does not support about the hamburger claim
No source in the provided reporting substantiates the literal claim that New York prosecutors under Alvin Bragg would or did convict a hamburger of murder; the material instead documents institutional power asymmetries, high indictment rates, and contested prosecutorial discretion in high‑profile cases [3] [1] [2]. Because the sources do not address fantastical examples, the reasonable conclusion from the reporting is that the claim is satire or rhetorical hyperbole rather than a factual allegation supported by evidence.
6. Bottom line: accurate worry, inaccurate literalism
Reporting validates the political worry behind the slogan — that prosecutors wield formidable control over charging decisions and that Alvin Bragg has made controversial choices about which matters to pursue [6] [2] [3] — but it does not lend credence to the literal claim of a hamburger conviction; the grand jury is not an automatic conveyor of guilt and the press record contains no instance of such an absurdity [3]. The debate documented in coverage is about thresholds, discretion and outcomes in high‑stakes prosecutions, not about convictions of inanimate objects.