- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Legal scholars praise Ferguson grand jury for fairness beyond the norm
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:16 pm
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:16 pm
quote:
“It was the most thorough grand jury investigation that I’ve ever heard of,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School.
Media outlets and supporters of Mr. Brown have said that Mr. McCulloch’s prosecution was unusual because he did not go in with the goal of seeking an indictment in secret, as most prosecutors do.
But Richard Kelsey, assistant dean for management and planning at George Mason University law school, said that what makes this case more unusual is that Mr. McCulloch sought justice rather than an indictment.
“More recently everyone has head the statement that ‘a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich,’” Mr. Kelsey said. “It is true that it is usually easy to get an indictment, but is that a just process? I would say no.”
LINK
1
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:18 pm to L.A.
I am very impressed that the DA brought in witnesses both favorable and unfavorable to indictment.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:38 pm to Radiojones
Yes. It was an Amazing job, and the main suspect gave 4 hours of discussion face to face... 
Posted on 11/26/14 at 5:01 am to CamdenTiger
quote:
and the main suspect gave 4 hours of discussion face to face...
Which I heard yesterday was a very, very unusual move in a GJ hearing to have the accused give testimony without representation.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:24 am to Radiojones
quote:
But Richard Kelsey, assistant dean for management and planning at George Mason University law school, said that what makes this case more unusual is that Mr. McCulloch sought justice rather than an indictment.
This quote shows a perversion of the normal legal process. The argument is what if we did this for every accused criminal? Do you think we'd have the prison industrial complex that we have now? If youre making an argument that we should change the grand jury process then fine, that's a legitimate point. But changing the process to produce a desired outcome can't be justified.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:38 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
But changing the process to produce a desired outcome can't be justified.
Tell that to all the gay right's judges overturning the process of enacting voter's wishes concerning laws voted on and passed.
If justice is not blind then what the DA is accused of happens every day in a judge's court somewhere but yet people are okay with that? I don't get the double standard.
I'm all about process, whether I agree with it or not. If the people want the process changed, then let them change it through elections of politicians and not appointed individuals.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:45 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
This quote shows a perversion of the normal legal process. The argument is what if we did this for every accused criminal? Do you think we'd have the prison industrial complex that we have now? If youre making an argument that we should change the grand jury process then fine, that's a legitimate point. But changing the process to produce a desired outcome can't be justified.
No, a case like this would likely have never made it to charges or GJ in that DA's are supposed to file charges / seek GJ indictments when they BELIEVE that a crime was committed and there is a likelihood of conviction.
The reason MOST GJ procedures are short, limited info affairs is that the DA is convinced of the criminal act and the criminal operator and he is TRYING to convict.
In a case where the question is "was there a crime at all", this case is the correct action. There is no "justice" in taking a person to trial that:
A) has no chance at being convicted
B) May have not committed a crime at all.
If the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" at trial...then the DA should have met that threshold for himself before even attempting to bring charges.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:46 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
But changing the process to produce a desired outcome can't be justified.
Tell that to all the gay right's judges overturning the process of enacting voter's wishes concerning laws voted on and passed.
This bears little, if any, relevance to the issue of grand jury indictment. Completely different discussion.
What is really interesting is the way grand juries operate in the first place, as discussed in the OP. Frankly, I wish DA's would employ a more neutral process as a rule, but I don't see that happening.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:50 am to Homesick Tiger
I agree with you that judges shouldn't be overturning voter wishes in general. However, the supreme court has ruled on this process (by not ruling on this process). I think that the supreme court should rule one way or the other and have it filter down to state courts.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:55 am to VOR
quote:
This bears little, if any, relevance to the issue of grand jury indictment.
I might have been vague in my post but I was actually debating processes, not the contents of the arguments and I still might not have a leg to stand on but that's my opinion.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 8:16 am to VOR
quote:
What is really interesting is the way grand juries operate in the first place, as discussed in the OP.
I am legally ignorant, so please bear with me. From reading the OP, it appears as this grand jury went beyond what is normally available in cases? So they were given access to even more information than is typical for a grand jury, I'm assuming to avoid any hint of impropriety? Is this assumption correct?
Posted on 11/26/14 at 10:50 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:I did not know that.
very unusual move in a GJ hearing to have the accused give testimony without representation.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 10:54 am to L.A.
quote:
very unusual move in a GJ hearing to have the accused give testimony without representation.
quote:
I did not know that.
No. The subject is always ALLOWED to do this. It is just very unusual for anyone to elect to do it because defense council is not allowed to be present.
In most cases, it is a very bad idea to subject oneself to this , on the record, without protection of council.
But, it is always available. The only time it is not is if the subject is not even aware of the proceeding at all
Posted on 11/26/14 at 10:54 am to L.A.
quote:
I did not know that.
You're not retired. I am. Listen/watch a lot of tv. Too much according to the wife.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News