What evidence does a grand jury use to reach a decision? I am under the impression that the grand jury reaches a decision based on evidence presented solely by the district attorney based on the physical evidence obtained by the DA, to see if there is sufficient evidence to indict, with no evidence presented by the defendant. Right or wrong?
Grand Jury
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Al, that is my understanding as well. The fact that the defendant was allowed to testify (in both of the recent cases) in my opinion calls into question (for me) the intent or goal of the grand jury. It would be nice if this worked for everybody subject to a grand jury investigation, and not these exceptions (if that is truly the case). We've got some lawyers on here, perhaps they can chime in.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Haven't done criminal in years, but here's what I know.
Prosecutors USUALLY use the grand jury as an investigative tool more than anything, typically trying ot sniff out organized crime. They have subpoena power and use it to collect evidence and, possibly, ultimately get an indictment.
The prosecutor has COMPLETE control over what the grand jury sees. There are interesting studies out there that show that in almost all cases, the prosecutor only puts on evidence favoring indictment. There are two exceptions to that: (a) cases where a police officer is a potential defendant and (b) high profile cases (like, for example the Tony Stewart case here where the DA put on evidence that Ward had smoked pot before racing.
In both instances, the role of the grand jury changes from being essentially an investigative arm (remember, a prosecutor can charge WITHOUT a grand jury) to basically a "cop out" (no pun intended) by the prosecutor. What teh prosecutor is doing is putting all of the evidence in front of a grand jury and letting them (rather than the prosecutor) decide whether to charge. That way, the prosecutor can essentially say "hey, not me, the GJ decided not to indict" rather than press charges in a highly political/high profile case, or one where the police the prosecutor works with every day are charged.
People have asked me what was unusual about the Garner and Brown grand juries. I typically say:
1. In general, they were unusual in the amount of exculpatory evidence the prosecution put on.
2. However, for these types of cases -- potential police defendant -- they were not unusual.
3. Grand juries almost always indict, except when a police officer is the target. The reason for that is because of the above -- prosecutors typically put on exculpatory evidence when a policeman is a target, while when it is a normal civilian, the prosecutor either just charges on his own, or only puts on damaging evidence.
4. The most unusual thing of all was that the prosecutor in Brown released all of the evidence to the public. Grand Juries are traditionally secret affairs and records of their proceedings almost never released.
My .02 cents.
Prosecutors USUALLY use the grand jury as an investigative tool more than anything, typically trying ot sniff out organized crime. They have subpoena power and use it to collect evidence and, possibly, ultimately get an indictment.
The prosecutor has COMPLETE control over what the grand jury sees. There are interesting studies out there that show that in almost all cases, the prosecutor only puts on evidence favoring indictment. There are two exceptions to that: (a) cases where a police officer is a potential defendant and (b) high profile cases (like, for example the Tony Stewart case here where the DA put on evidence that Ward had smoked pot before racing.
In both instances, the role of the grand jury changes from being essentially an investigative arm (remember, a prosecutor can charge WITHOUT a grand jury) to basically a "cop out" (no pun intended) by the prosecutor. What teh prosecutor is doing is putting all of the evidence in front of a grand jury and letting them (rather than the prosecutor) decide whether to charge. That way, the prosecutor can essentially say "hey, not me, the GJ decided not to indict" rather than press charges in a highly political/high profile case, or one where the police the prosecutor works with every day are charged.
People have asked me what was unusual about the Garner and Brown grand juries. I typically say:
1. In general, they were unusual in the amount of exculpatory evidence the prosecution put on.
2. However, for these types of cases -- potential police defendant -- they were not unusual.
3. Grand juries almost always indict, except when a police officer is the target. The reason for that is because of the above -- prosecutors typically put on exculpatory evidence when a policeman is a target, while when it is a normal civilian, the prosecutor either just charges on his own, or only puts on damaging evidence.
4. The most unusual thing of all was that the prosecutor in Brown released all of the evidence to the public. Grand Juries are traditionally secret affairs and records of their proceedings almost never released.
My .02 cents.
Do you think that the reason evidence was released to the public was to explain why the decision was reached to attempt to keep violence to a minimum? Not that the evidence would sway public opinion one way or another. I doubt that anyone read it.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
People DID read it, Al. At least some did.
I am not (obviously) a lawyer, but frankly the grand jury proceeding in this case stinks about as much as it possibly could. It's quite clear to me that the prosecutor's goal was to specifically avoid indicting Officer Wilson. The grand jury procedure was co opted and distorted in order to avoid an indictment.
There's a fair amount of irony here, actually. I don't think Michael Brown was any saint- he was a petty criminal and narrow-gauge badass and more than likely he DID attack Officer Wilson. But by perverting the grand jury proceeding, McCulloch, the prosecutor, has perpetuated all the doubts of the situation forever. A properly conducted and fair trial would have likely got Wilson innocent of charges, and established what really happened- unlike the GJ proceeding which is now widely perceived as a whitewash and a deliberate effort NOT to indict. So what McCulloch has done is to ensure doubts about the case in perpetuity. I suspect Wilson acted reasonably in the circumstances, but by ensuring that no trial would ever take place in open court, McCulloch has eliminated any chance for Wilson to clear his name. But this isn't unusual- prosecutors very seldom indict police officers. They see them as allies- regardless of how badly they act.
McCulloch should have recused himself from the case in the first place. The fact is that black Americans and Latino Americans DO get different behavior from the police than white Americans do. None of this excuses the hooligan behavior in Ferguson, the rioting, the looting, the burning of cars- but people who only see that Michael Brown wasn't an angel and the disorder surrounding all this are missing the point. The real point is that the police treat black Americans a lot differently, and that police racism is alive and well in this country. And why? Because police behavior mirrors society's beliefs.
I am not (obviously) a lawyer, but frankly the grand jury proceeding in this case stinks about as much as it possibly could. It's quite clear to me that the prosecutor's goal was to specifically avoid indicting Officer Wilson. The grand jury procedure was co opted and distorted in order to avoid an indictment.
There's a fair amount of irony here, actually. I don't think Michael Brown was any saint- he was a petty criminal and narrow-gauge badass and more than likely he DID attack Officer Wilson. But by perverting the grand jury proceeding, McCulloch, the prosecutor, has perpetuated all the doubts of the situation forever. A properly conducted and fair trial would have likely got Wilson innocent of charges, and established what really happened- unlike the GJ proceeding which is now widely perceived as a whitewash and a deliberate effort NOT to indict. So what McCulloch has done is to ensure doubts about the case in perpetuity. I suspect Wilson acted reasonably in the circumstances, but by ensuring that no trial would ever take place in open court, McCulloch has eliminated any chance for Wilson to clear his name. But this isn't unusual- prosecutors very seldom indict police officers. They see them as allies- regardless of how badly they act.
McCulloch should have recused himself from the case in the first place. The fact is that black Americans and Latino Americans DO get different behavior from the police than white Americans do. None of this excuses the hooligan behavior in Ferguson, the rioting, the looting, the burning of cars- but people who only see that Michael Brown wasn't an angel and the disorder surrounding all this are missing the point. The real point is that the police treat black Americans a lot differently, and that police racism is alive and well in this country. And why? Because police behavior mirrors society's beliefs.
The GJ decision I couldn't believe was the latest one in NY (Eric Garner case). Good krymuny. I've watched the vid several times trying to figure out why a "choke hold" was even necessary in the 1st place...and for the life of me I can't see it.
There were 400 dozen or so LEOs there at the scene...E.G. was already on the deck...how was he a threat of any kind? Didn't the sheer numbers of LEOs present pretty much guarantee the guy could be cuffed? I mean, come ON.
I'd sure like to know what 'twas the GJ knew/knows about this whole event that WE don't. :squint:
There were 400 dozen or so LEOs there at the scene...E.G. was already on the deck...how was he a threat of any kind? Didn't the sheer numbers of LEOs present pretty much guarantee the guy could be cuffed? I mean, come ON.
I'd sure like to know what 'twas the GJ knew/knows about this whole event that WE don't. :squint:
The "irony" is, if Wilson had gone to trial and based on the evidence he had been not found guilty, the rioting would go nationwide. It was a lose, lose, situation. I am not naïve enough to believe that Police racism doesn't occur, but not anywhere near the scope you suggest. Especially in the "if I had a son" era we are living in. I think most cops walk on egg shells.
.
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I'm most bothered, not by the "racism" that keeps creeping its way into these discussions, but the systemic attitudes by law enforcement (toward any individual) that might makes right, and they are untouchable. The Ferguson situation is way different than the NY situation, or any number of other incidents throughout the US, where police rely on the most forceful method as the first method of controlling the situation. What this GJ (and the whole process now) says is that banned practices are allowable, and that the end justifies the means, and that police are not held accountable for their actions...period. That is a very dangerous precedent.
And body cameras; how would that make any difference in the NY case, which was videoed from start to finish. Why would any reasonable person believe a body-cam will ensure police accountability when this video couldn't even facilitate that?
And body cameras; how would that make any difference in the NY case, which was videoed from start to finish. Why would any reasonable person believe a body-cam will ensure police accountability when this video couldn't even facilitate that?
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
I agree with you, Terry, but body cameras won't make the situation any worse, and it is a lot better for police departments to spend money on body cameras than on, say, surplus Army equipment, like we've all seen.
One of the most disastrous effects in the post-9/11 era is the militarization of our police departments. and I may be about as white and blue-eyed as they get, but that didn't stop me from having a very unpleasant encounter with one of the local police departments many years ago that still bothers me to this day. But for the fact that several of my colleagues and friends KNEW for an absolute fact that I was at band practice with them, my life might be far different now. I was astonished at the time how rapidly an ordinary and orderly life can be turned upside down by suspicious police officers- even when the person in question can clearly demonstrate that they were at an entirely different location miles away at the time a crime was committed. It's terrifying. I still don't trust the police. Thankfully, at the age of 63, I am much less of a target.
One of the most disastrous effects in the post-9/11 era is the militarization of our police departments. and I may be about as white and blue-eyed as they get, but that didn't stop me from having a very unpleasant encounter with one of the local police departments many years ago that still bothers me to this day. But for the fact that several of my colleagues and friends KNEW for an absolute fact that I was at band practice with them, my life might be far different now. I was astonished at the time how rapidly an ordinary and orderly life can be turned upside down by suspicious police officers- even when the person in question can clearly demonstrate that they were at an entirely different location miles away at the time a crime was committed. It's terrifying. I still don't trust the police. Thankfully, at the age of 63, I am much less of a target.
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
The one thing that bothers me most is as a kid, and how much I looked up to police, and befriended them whenever possible simply because of who they were. I'm grown up now (or think I am), and with eyes wider open puts a whole different light on that relationship, and I find that to be a shame considering I've never had a run-in with the law (other than a traffic citation here and there).
Listening to the news, it appears there are even more cases popping up. Here's another one that seems even more senseless:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/n...officer-fatally-shoots-brooklyn-man.html?_r=0
Listening to the news, it appears there are even more cases popping up. Here's another one that seems even more senseless:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/n...officer-fatally-shoots-brooklyn-man.html?_r=0
Last edited:
This one had me wondering if the LEO was holding his pistol with his trigger finger INSIDE the trigger guard, or OUTSIDE IT (along side the barrel/cyl./slide) as he should have been. The latter grip technique being designed to prevent accidental "reflex" discharges...which appears to be what might have happened here.
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I don't think the Ferguson incident and this one are connected other than a police Officer was involved in both.
In Ferguson the perpetrator was shot deliberately by the officer who allegedly was in fear for his life. New York was an accident.
In Ferguson the perpetrator was shot deliberately by the officer who allegedly was in fear for his life. New York was an accident.
...but, both cases are connected in that people ended up dead.
In the Ferguson case, the death was probably the fault of the deceased.
In the two N.Y. incidents, "fault" can clearly be argued otherwise...especially in the Brooklyn case. Whether or not any of the 3 deaths can be said to have resulted from criminal acts...who knows.
How much of this culture is down to local policing employed by the 'City' , i.e. not a national police force?
In the UK, the family of the victim could pursue a private prosecution through the civil courts. This is often the case when there has been a case which either didn't make the courts because the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) decided there was insufficient evidence, or that a criminal trial ended in an acquittal.
In the UK, the family of the victim could pursue a private prosecution through the civil courts. This is often the case when there has been a case which either didn't make the courts because the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) decided there was insufficient evidence, or that a criminal trial ended in an acquittal.
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Good point. It would be nice if America could focus purely on justice (e.g the UK?), rather than all the other things (assured convictions, politics, covering your ass, and all the other distractors from justice)
IMHO, this "situation" has arisen because of the very phenomenon that was mentioned in a previous post...the militarization of our police forces. Much of the military style equipment they have recently added to their arsenals comes from surplus military equipment left over after we withdrew from Iraq, and there will be more coming once we're fully withdrawn from Afghanistan. This military equipment is, according to what I have read, provided at no cost to the police departments who apply for the equipment.
The end result of this militarization of our police forces has become a public mistrust. The general public no longer believes, IMHO, that the goal of the police is to serve and protect...it is quite evident to most of us that the attitude of the police is to assure that they achieve their goal, whether reasonable or not, with little risk to themselves and with little consideration of the risk to which they put the general public. I have mentioned time and time again in these discussions that we have become a police state, where the police are judge and jury. Need proof? Try running from the police once...acquaintances of mine who are police say that if you run from them they will make you pay if they catch you...that's premeditated police brutality, although you will not find any police department that has a policy to encourage it, it is a "cultural" (as in the culture of police officers) phenomenon that is not only accepted, but encouraged.
Time and time again we see videos of police shootouts, and in some of them it does appear as if the criminals DO have more firepower than the LEOs. This is, however, far from the norm, and in fact I can think of only one case where I've seen the videos, although there are a few more cases where the proof does appear to validate the concept that the police were out-gunned.
My step-son was a victim of police brutality just because he did not "Yes, SIR" the police. He may have been a bit lippy, I don't know, but i can imagine it happening...yet, the physical brutality was way out of proportion to the nature of the infraction. I, myself, have questioned the police when I was stopped for a traffic violation, I simply asked to be allowed to see the reading on the radar gun that provided the "reasonable cause" to stop me. I was cuffed, shoved up against the police car, and told I would be arrested if I said another work or if I refused to sign the ticket. Was that the way to protect and serve me? I think not.....
For the black community the police are the enemy within. It's becoming that way more and more for other cultures, too. How can we stop this transformation?
I, for one, don't have much hope...
Cheers? I doubt it!
Doug
The end result of this militarization of our police forces has become a public mistrust. The general public no longer believes, IMHO, that the goal of the police is to serve and protect...it is quite evident to most of us that the attitude of the police is to assure that they achieve their goal, whether reasonable or not, with little risk to themselves and with little consideration of the risk to which they put the general public. I have mentioned time and time again in these discussions that we have become a police state, where the police are judge and jury. Need proof? Try running from the police once...acquaintances of mine who are police say that if you run from them they will make you pay if they catch you...that's premeditated police brutality, although you will not find any police department that has a policy to encourage it, it is a "cultural" (as in the culture of police officers) phenomenon that is not only accepted, but encouraged.
Time and time again we see videos of police shootouts, and in some of them it does appear as if the criminals DO have more firepower than the LEOs. This is, however, far from the norm, and in fact I can think of only one case where I've seen the videos, although there are a few more cases where the proof does appear to validate the concept that the police were out-gunned.
My step-son was a victim of police brutality just because he did not "Yes, SIR" the police. He may have been a bit lippy, I don't know, but i can imagine it happening...yet, the physical brutality was way out of proportion to the nature of the infraction. I, myself, have questioned the police when I was stopped for a traffic violation, I simply asked to be allowed to see the reading on the radar gun that provided the "reasonable cause" to stop me. I was cuffed, shoved up against the police car, and told I would be arrested if I said another work or if I refused to sign the ticket. Was that the way to protect and serve me? I think not.....
For the black community the police are the enemy within. It's becoming that way more and more for other cultures, too. How can we stop this transformation?
I, for one, don't have much hope...
Cheers? I doubt it!
Doug
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
We have met the enemy- one of several- and they are us.
Similar threads
