Freinds and Neighbors

[Jogeephus]

We have a system that works pretty well and adding more government is not the answer. The answer is in electing a DA that represents the people and the community. Our DA was sent to prison by the FBI so I understand how this power can corrupt. He was replaced by a political appointee who had higher political ambitions who charged a boy's neighbor with negligent homicide after the lawn mower the boy was riding and had been riding for two years earning money by cutting the neighbor's lawn turned over on him and killed the boy. It was terrible. But her brainless mind saw fit to put the neighbor's before the grand jury and treat them like criminals. She also pressed charges and incarcerated a man for shooting a dog that was killing his goats even though state law gave him the right to kill anything harming his livestock but she was a big Humane Society advocate. A nut case. None of this nonsense was justice and she was quickly replaced when we were given a chance to vote for who we wanted to represent our interests.

Is it perfect? NO. But adding more layers of government will only make it worse.

 

[backhoeboogie]

A cop interviews the witnesses. They give statements. Cop is third party. He/she was not there. Security cam shows same thing to third party. DA does not want to put a case before a judge that is not a rock solid murder rap. DA figures judge or jury will find self defense.

No bias from cops doing interviews. If friend or family are victims or witness it is a conflict of interest and they find someone else.

Sky I think you get your wish.

 

[Ryder]

Doesn't seem like "just a formality" to me.
If it is, then why bother.
If it is not, seems like there is some kind of set up to make the person prove his innocence.
Not supposed to have to prove innocence.

 

[greybeard]

Yes sir I also see your point and like the idea of having a da oversee the evidence. I just think there needs to be someone to look at serious things such as that maybe a grand jury is not the solution and yours is but I do think all needs to be looked at by an outside source.

Using a grand jury actually INCREASES the odds of it NOT going to a jury trial. Their sole job is to determine if the DA and investigative people have enough evidence to warrant a trial and charge or not.

BHB, in the instance you posted, the DA is probably a supporter of concealed carry and a supporter of handguns in general. What if he was not? If he were predisposed to push for a jury trial in all shootings, then this shooter could very well find himself fighting for his life based only on how one individual felt about a bigger issue. The grandjury on the other hand is already impaneled anyway, made up of a variety of people from everyday walks of life,and the hear several cases everyday (if the grand jury I was on is any indication).
The GJ is simply a check and balance against prejudicial DAs and biased evidence gathering and presentation.
If I have to have the evidence against me weighed, I would rather it be judged by my peers and not by a single (probably) career politician looking to make a name for himself.

Doesn't seem like "just a formality" to me.
If it is, then why bother.
If it is not, seems like there is some kind of set up to make the person prove his innocence.
Not supposed to have to prove innocence.

There is no defense evidence presented at a grand jury. All they rule on, is whether the DA has presented enough evidence to proceed with a jury trial. In many cases, the defendant's attorneys aren't present, and if they are, they can not present any evidence. The grand jury rules on presented prosecutorial evidence--nothing else. They do NOT decide innocence or guilt.
By protocol, much of the information the DA has seen is not allowed at GJ testimony. They don't hear ((for instance) that a suspect had a long record or if he was squeaky clean--but the DA has already been informed of such outside information, not directly associated with this particular case, so his mindset can (and often is) tainted with info that really doesn't pertain to the case in question. GJ is not a formality--it's to keep the DA on the straight and narrow.

 

[skyhightree1]

Not supposed to have to prove innocence.

Go to a court for child support and I guarantee you well at least here you will be guilty until you prove yourself innocent they tae a woman's word as the gospel... Trust me ;-)

 

[greybeard]

Isn't child support/custody a civil matter? There's no guilt/not guilty in civil trials--just a judgment for or against plaintiff.

 

[Jogeephus]

Sky for someone who says he was a police officer you sure don't know too much about the courts or how they work.

 

[lavacarancher]

Shang, you're right. A lot of scary stuff out there and it ain't over. My recommendation is keep your powder dry.

It's a sad world when the justice system we've had in place for many years is now being thrown out by a few folks. Watched TV last night and was amazed at the number of folks who stated that neither of the two cops should go to trial - but rather straight to the gallows. Nothing was mentioned about what led up to the attempted arrests - nothing! So this leaves me wondering if some folks think it's OK to commit a crime and not face arrest and worse, resist arrest.

I wasn't there and have no idea what really happened and neither were any of you. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine if there is enough evidence (real and true) to pursue a trial. IF what we have been hearing about what Mr. Brown did both before AND after the attempted arrest is true then the police officer should get off scott free. That is unlikely to happen. This poor bast…. is going to be hung out to dry by our leadership in Washington. I really only know one thing. If a 6' 6", 300 pound man started wiping my a$$ I would have done the same thing as the officer only maybe reloaded a couple of times.

 

[Jogeephus]

Its sad when a community is so morally bankrupt that they try and make a martyr out of a criminal. You show me where a police officer shoots an unarmed person who is peacefully walking down the sidewalk minding his own business and I'll help you burn the police station to the ground. I don't care what race, creed or sexual orientation he is. I'll even provide the matches.

 

[slick4591]

I wasn't there and have no idea what really happened and neither were any of you. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine if there is enough evidence (real and true) to pursue a trial.

This is in fact what the GJ is supposed to do. Only problem with this is a GJ can be led down the wrong road by a prosecutor. It been said that a prosecutor can get a GJ to indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to. I've worked for two DA's that wanted justice and with one that wanted numbers for his political career. The numbers guy is why I retired when I did.

Also, I've heard so much about video tape evidence and I've always known that unless you have several angles what you see is not always what actually happens. This video surfaced yesterday on a great illustration of that. Without a second camera would would automatically jump to the conclusion that this was a brutality incident.

http://youtu.be/4UNxjoJTIYg
[youtube]4UNxjoJTIYg[/youtube]

I wonder how many careers have been ended because of just one camera that didn't show the entire story?

 

[Jogeephus]

For me, the one camera was plenty but I get what you are saying. The way I see it, if you resist you might as well get ready for a butt whooping and deservedly so. You've earned it.

 

[TexasBred]

Yes sir I also see your point and like the idea of having a da oversee the evidence. I just think there needs to be someone to look at serious things such as that maybe a grand jury is not the solution and yours is but I do think all needs to be looked at by an outside source.

Using a grand jury actually INCREASES the odds of it NOT going to a jury trial. Their sole job is to determine if the DA and investigative people have enough evidence to warrant a trial and charge or not.

Technically that is what a grand jury is all about. In reality all they do is follow the recommendations of the DA whether to "no bill or indict". The DA actually makes the determination beforehand. The grand jury simply rubber stamps his recommendation.

 

[TexasBred]

I really only know one thing. If a 6' 6", 300 pound man started wiping my a$$ I would have done the same thing as the officer only maybe reloaded a couple of times.

If he is not indicted first thing he needs to do is go to the practice range and get some practice and check the sights on that pistol.

 

[skyhightree1]

.

I wasn't there and have no idea what really happened and neither were any of you. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine if there is enough evidence (real and true) to pursue a trial. IF what we have been hearing about what Mr. Brown did both before AND after the attempted arrest is true then the police officer should get off scott free. That is unlikely to happen. This poor bast…. is going to be hung out to dry.

That police officer I can't remember his name has definately got a death warrant on his head guilty or not. His family will never be safe his wife will probably leave him if hes married. His face is all over the internet. It won't be hard to find him the gangs from other states coming in do not value life nor care about going to jail. He better move to europe.

 

[lavacarancher]

Slick, you keep saying that GJ's are not worth their salt and that they are controlled by the DA. I don't know that's true. Never served on a GJ but I can tell you that if the evidence presented to a grand jury that I'm sitting on is not up to snuff I don't give a F… what the DA says, I'm going to follow the evidence. Maybe you should have too if you're basing your opinions on your personal experiences.

The Brown incident and the other one in New York stink to high heaven. The evidence gathering phase in these cases is being influenced by ignorant, instigated, mob rule with absolutely no regard for the truth - period. And, if the truth indicates that the shooting or killing was justified it still won't make any difference.

Keep your powder dry.

 

[slick4591]

Slick, you keep saying that GJ's are not worth their salt and that they are controlled by the DA. I don't know that's true. Never served on a GJ but I can tell you that if the evidence presented to a grand jury that I'm sitting on is not up to snuff I don't give a F… what the DA says, I'm going to follow the evidence. Maybe you should have too if you're basing your opinions on your personal experiences.

Yep, there are my personal experiences. During my 20 years as a DA investigator we rotated in and out doing GJ baliff jobs. We also took cases in on intake and got them ready for presentation. I've seen plenty of cases where the GJ wrongly (IMHO) and correctly went against the prosecutor's recommendation, but If you had to put percentage number on it it would be below 1% of the time.

I've seen where prosecutor's wrongly asked for True Bills when a NO Bill should have been delivered and vice versa. Everyone has their own ideas and sometime their biases get in the way. (I'm talking about everyone involved in the process including GJ members.) Sometimes all the evidence does not get presented. There's to much prosecutor discretion involved, but I don't know how you get around it.

My wife has been a GJ legal secretary in the same office almost 30 years. Although we don't discuss evidentiary or testimony matters, she does get highly frustrated with things going on, and like any wife she unloads it on me.

I don't want anyone thinking that I'm saying that all GJ processes are bad because they are not. I am saying that they can be manipulated to one's personal agenda and have been. If you take that MO governor and put him in charge of the GJ you would have a pretty good idea of what would happen to that case all because of the politics involved.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

lavaca,

I believe if you are in a grand jury, you only see what the DA wants you to see. There is no second side of the evidence, the defense doesn't get to say anything or object to anything. There is no judge from my understanding. It is the DA's show only.

It's like taking one side of an argument and deciding who's in the wrong.

 

[slick4591]

lavaca,

I believe if you are in a grand jury, you only see what the DA wants you to see. There is no second side of the evidence, the defense doesn't get to say anything or object to anything. There is no judge from my understanding. It is the DA's show only.

It's like taking one side of an argument and deciding who's in the wrong.

Pretty much. Lots of attorney's prepare what they call Defendant's Handout giving the defendant's side of the story. Defendant's can also request to testify and again it's discretionary.

 

[greybeard]

Yes sir I also see your point and like the idea of having a da oversee the evidence. I just think there needs to be someone to look at serious things such as that maybe a grand jury is not the solution and yours is but I do think all needs to be looked at by an outside source.

Using a grand jury actually INCREASES the odds of it NOT going to a jury trial. Their sole job is to determine if the DA and investigative people have enough evidence to warrant a trial and charge or not.

Technically that is what a grand jury is all about. In reality all they do is follow the recommendations of the DA whether to "no bill or indict". The DA actually makes the determination beforehand. The grand jury simply rubber stamps his recommendation.

Depends.
In states or districts where the defendant is allowed to testify at a GJ hearing, according to DoJ data, the no bill ruling runs anywhere from 40-60% of total cases heard.
In the GJ I was on, I didn't keep track but make an educated guess of 75% true bill-25% no bill.
Might seem pretty one sided, but not for the 25% no billed.

 

[TexasBred]

In states or districts where the defendant is allowed to testify at a GJ hearing, according to DoJ data, the no bill ruling runs anywhere from 40-60% of total cases heard.
In the GJ I was on, I didn't keep track but make an educated guess of 75% true bill-25% no bill.
Might seem pretty one sided, but not for the 25% no billed.

Unfortunately in our state a criminal defendant does not have the right to testify at the grand jury nor does your attorney have the right to be present. Because the proceedings are secretive the transcript, if any, is not available.

Ihave no idea what the percentages were when I was on grand juries but many were nobilled per the DA's recommendation.