Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
jurors sit with law books I really doubt that. The problem is just what you said here, the prosecutor proposes charges....and in these cases of fatal law enforcement shootings the prosecutor is suggesting that NO CHARGES BE FILED!
On a Grand Jury (at least in Arizona), each juror has a copy of the Arizona statutes and matches the evidence to the proposed charge(s). We spent a lot of time discussing what the statute actually said with regard to the charge(s) proposed.
If the prosecutor went before a GJ then he must have proposed charges. What they were we don't know. Far more likely is that the evidence presented was insufficient or there was some other impediment such as a justification defense and the State failed to prove that the officer was not justified.
Disclosure: my GJ experience was Arizona and not Ohio. The law in each state is different.
Bear in mind that the GJ is not there to find the defendant guilty or innocent. It is there to ensure that the prosecution supplies sufficient evidence for the defendant to be indicted. If the prosecution fails to do that it is not the fault of the GJ.
And, yes, I have served on a Grand Jury and 1) the prosecutor does not present the case, the prosecutor proposes charges, 2) all proceedings outside the private deliberations of the GJ are on the record so any unethical behavior will be recorded, 3) none of us know exactly what the evidence presented was, and, 4) there are issues of law such as 'justification' which complicate matters (GJ jurors actually sit with law books in front of them).
A grand Jury is one of the checks and balances in our system. It is there to ensure that innocent people are not maliciously or wrongly indicted and that there is sufficient evidence to find probable cause. In other words, it is there to protect the defendant. It is not there to ensure that someone convicted in the 'court of public opinion' faces trial.
The problem here is that many people have already decided that the police officer is guilty and are outraged that the Grand Jury did not share their opinion.
Just because you've been on a grand jury does not mean that all grand juries operate the same way.
And read the first paragraph, just for starters: "Grand jury practice is determined on a state-by-state basis. ... The practices of grand juries thus vary by state and federal jurisdictions."
Here is the flaw in your attempt to make it a race thing "how do you KNOW it wouldn't have gone the same way had the kids color been different"?
You don't, nobody does.
Color means nothing in this case, unless it's all one wants to see to promote an agenda.
As I said earlier, I've been waiting for all the Blacks who think the kid should have been shot to death to identify themselves.
But I'll ask you, if this had gone to a jury in an all-White community versus an all-Black community, you think the outcome of the trial would be the same. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Is that why there are so often requests for changes in venue?
And read the first paragraph, just for starters: "Grand jury practice is determined on a state-by-state basis. ... The practices of grand juries thus vary by state and federal jurisdictions."
Would you like another serving of shrimp scampi?
Yes ... and I have disclosed that my experience was in Arizona and that Ohio law might be different.
On a Grand Jury (at least in Arizona), each juror has a copy of the Arizona statutes and matches the evidence to the proposed charge(s). We spent a lot of time discussing what the statute actually said with regard to the charge(s) proposed. If the prosecutor went before a GJ then he must have proposed charges. What they were we don't know. Far more likely is that the evidence presented was insufficient or there was some other impediment such as a justification defense and the State failed to prove that the officer was not justified. Disclosure: my GJ experience was Arizona and not Ohio. The law in each state is different. Bear in mind that the GJ is not there to find the defendant guilty or innocent. It is there to ensure that the prosecution supplies sufficient evidence for the defendant to be indicted. If the prosecution fails to do that it is not the fault of the GJ.
Here is the problem with Grand Juries, the prosecutor is not required to present exculpatory evidence. In lay terms what that means is that if Officer Jones shot and killed someone and there are witnesses who will testify that the victim was unarmed, compliant and was following the directions of the Officer, the Prosecutor does not have to present that to the Grand Jury.
The question in United States v. Williams was whether it is prosecutorial misconduct, requiring the dismissal of an indictment, for the prosecutor to withhold from the grand jury “substantial exculpatory evidence” in his possession that might lead the grand jury to reject the indictment. The Supreme Court said no. Justice Scalia, joined by four other Justices, held that the Constitution does not require exculpatory evidence to be disclosed, even when it is directly contrary to the prosecutor’s theory of guilt. That is partly because the grand jury’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but rather to decide whether there is enough evidence of a crime that a conviction is possible. The grand jury itself can say “we’ve heard enough,” and so the Court declined to impose on the prosecutor a burden to present it with all of the evidence.
He bought it from the same guy who sold him the Brooklyn Bridge.
When those of extreme low intellect can't make a point using facts and logic they have to resort to 3rd grade level insults. God bless you, your struggles must be real and very difficult to live with.
As I said earlier, I've been waiting for all the Blacks who think the kid should have been shot to death to identify themselves.
But I'll ask you, if this had gone to a jury in an all-White community versus an all-Black community, you think the outcome of the trial would be the same. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Is that why there are so often requests for changes in venue?
I take it you're a 13 year old girl. As such, why are you throwing around your opinions like you know something?
I take it you're a 13 year old girl. As such, why are you throwing around your opinions like you know something?
Why don't you try answering the question.
Let me rephrase it:
Would those who are sticking up for the cops, had the grand jury decided differently, be perfectly content with the trial having an all-Black jury or having the venue changed to an overwhelmingly Black community?
You can reply any way you wish, but you and I both know the answer.
And, before you denigrate other people's posts as being childish, who was it that said, "You really hate America. Please leave my country."
Here is the problem with Grand Juries, the prosecutor is not required to present exculpatory evidence. In lay terms what that means is that if Officer Jones shot and killed someone and there are witnesses who will testify that the victim was unarmed, compliant and was following the directions of the Officer, the Prosecutor does not have to present that to the Grand Jury.
The question in United States v. Williams was whether it is prosecutorial misconduct, requiring the dismissal of an indictment, for the prosecutor to withhold from the grand jury “substantial exculpatory evidence” in his possession that might lead the grand jury to reject the indictment. The Supreme Court said no. Justice Scalia, joined by four other Justices, held that the Constitution does not require exculpatory evidence to be disclosed, even when it is directly contrary to the prosecutor’s theory of guilt. That is partly because the grand jury’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but rather to decide whether there is enough evidence of a crime that a conviction is possible. The grand jury itself can say “we’ve heard enough,” and so the Court declined to impose on the prosecutor a burden to present it with all of the evidence.
That is not a problem with the GJ system per se. That is a problem with the law, with prosecutorial ethics and which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The reasoning behind it is explained in Scalia's opinion.
Certainly in Arizona, the defense can request to be heard by the GJ. We had two such cases when I served one of which led to a No Bill.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really doubt that. The problem is just what you said here, the prosecutor proposes charges....and in these cases of fatal law enforcement shootings the prosecutor is suggesting that NO CHARGES BE FILED!
