- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Tamir Rice: Judge finds cause for Murder charge over police killing of 12 year-o
As Justice Scalia put in in Williams, the case I cited, the grand jury is an accusatory body, not an adjudicatory one. The grand jury's purpose is to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge.
Yes, that's how grand juries have operated for centuries, as Justice Scalia discussed in the passage I quoted. What of it?
That's not entirely accurate. A grand jury cannot compel witnesses to appear or evidence to be produced, but it can appeal to the court to have those things done.
"The [grand jury has] power to investigate criminal wrongdoing . . . Unlike a court, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not. It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even the precise nature of the offense it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation."
Yes, that is how grand juries operate. What of it?
The duty of the prosecution is to see that justice is done. It would be unethical of any prosecutor to misuse a grand jury to protect a person he believes has committed a serious crime by purposely withholding relevant evidence of that crime. And as I noted, the grand jury has broad power, exercised through the court, to compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence. If the grand jury sensed the prosecution was covering up evidence to shield the person suspected, it could force that evidence to be presented to it.
There was also a lot of hostility toward the use of a grand jury in the Ferguson case, and very little evidence that the people hostile to it gave a damn about the fact indictment by a grand jury for serious crimes is a hallowed constitutional right. Not one in a thousand of them knows the Supreme Court has never applied that right to the states--they just don't give a damn about constitutional rights in general.
Grand Jury's are prosecution tools.
As Justice Scalia put in in Williams, the case I cited, the grand jury is an accusatory body, not an adjudicatory one. The grand jury's purpose is to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge.
and no one is there to challenge anything the prosecutor says.
Yes, that's how grand juries have operated for centuries, as Justice Scalia discussed in the passage I quoted. What of it?
The prosecutor decides what they see . . . It isn't a finder of fact. It simply decides whether there cause to proceed with a trial. And that is based completely in what the prosecutor presents.
That's not entirely accurate. A grand jury cannot compel witnesses to appear or evidence to be produced, but it can appeal to the court to have those things done.
"The [grand jury has] power to investigate criminal wrongdoing . . . Unlike a court, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not. It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even the precise nature of the offense it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation."
The proceedings further are secret. Virtually no on sees what goes on.
Yes, that is how grand juries operate. What of it?
If a prosecutor wants an indictment he'll probably get it. Conversely if he doesn't want one he probably won't.
The duty of the prosecution is to see that justice is done. It would be unethical of any prosecutor to misuse a grand jury to protect a person he believes has committed a serious crime by purposely withholding relevant evidence of that crime. And as I noted, the grand jury has broad power, exercised through the court, to compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence. If the grand jury sensed the prosecution was covering up evidence to shield the person suspected, it could force that evidence to be presented to it.
There was also a lot of hostility toward the use of a grand jury in the Ferguson case, and very little evidence that the people hostile to it gave a damn about the fact indictment by a grand jury for serious crimes is a hallowed constitutional right. Not one in a thousand of them knows the Supreme Court has never applied that right to the states--they just don't give a damn about constitutional rights in general.
Last edited: