Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

History of grand juries

Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:15 pm
Posted by Big Scrub TX
Member since Dec 2013
33264 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:15 pm
I didn't know a lot about the ancient history which left us with the legal relic of grand juries. This columnist argues that it's original intent has effectively been turned on its head:

quote:

The decision by St. Louis County Chief Prosecutor Robert McCulloch to put the issue neutrally before the grand jury was intended to create a sense of public legitimacy for whatever result followed, and also no doubt to deflect blame from the prosecutor's own exercise of discretion. It failed on both counts -- and with good reason.


quote:

The practice developed into an institution that validated accusations and therefore commenced prosecution. In the era when private individuals could bring criminal charges, the grand jury was a useful check on allegations, assuring that they had enough substance to go forward before the accused would be brought to the dock.

The Founding Fathers believed that grand juries had another use: blocking the government from bringing wildly unpopular prosecutions. In the grips of the republican spirit, the state ratifying conventions insisted on putting the grand jury into the Bill of Rights. That's why the federal government still uses them -- and a big reason that roughly half the states use grand juries in some form.


quote:

All this background is necessary to explain why it was so strange for the prosecutors in Ferguson case to announce that they were going to present evidence to the grand jury and then let it make up its own mind. Prosecutors never treat the grand jury that way. They present a case to the grand jury only if they are actively seeking to prosecute -- then they show the jury the prosecution’s side of the case, and direct the jury to indict if there is probable cause to go forward.

The St. Louis County prosecutors were trying to be clever, repurposing an ancient institution for the contemporary political situation. They seemed to think that, because the grand jury members are drawn from the public, they would create public validation for whatever outcome the grand jury reached.


quote:

Prosecutorial discretion is an enormous power, as President Barack Obama recently demonstrated in another context by his executive order on immigration. To trust prosecutors with this judgment, we need to see them owning the decisions they make. Deflecting responsibility to a grand jury can't solve the problem -- and in Ferguson, it didn't.


LINK
Posted by RaginCajunz
Member since Mar 2009
5297 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:25 pm to
Can you imagine the uproar if the prosecution threw out all of the fables that were unreliable and made up and only presented the GJ with the evidence they felt would hold up in court? There would have been riots that they were withholding the truth (Troof). The only reason it went to a GJ was due to outside pressure to prosecute, not because anyone who saw the evidence believed there was a case.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
67527 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:37 pm to
O Joy, so let's take down one of the few speed bumps left that helps slow down the government from running us over whenever it wants.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123745 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:46 pm to
quote:

Deflecting responsibility to a grand jury can't solve the problem
Good God Almighty that is one stupid premise
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
111489 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:48 pm to
bullshite.

A big pile of steaming bullshite.

Your "side" lost so you want to change the rules. EAD.
Posted by Homesick Tiger
Greenbrier, AR
Member since Nov 2006
54201 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:01 pm to
quote:

Deflecting responsibility to a grand jury


Yet this is what people were screaming for - a grand jury investigation They got it, don't like it and now complain, again.

I'm not a lawyer but incremental steps of justice are figured into our justice system. You start at the bottom with a system that deems whether or not there is probable cause for indictment. As long as the law keeps getting a base hit when they swing they keep on batting and swinging.

This case, the law fanned and the legal game is over.

With your opinion, imo, it seems that if a man was caught dead to rights on camera walking up and shooting a guy pointblank and killing him, then the shooter should go straight to Old Sparky. Many would agree with you but most realize that there is a system in place to do that and to maintain law and order this procedure must be respected.
Posted by baybeefeetz
Member since Sep 2009
31618 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:09 pm to
Link to "screaming for"? Thanks
Posted by Homesick Tiger
Greenbrier, AR
Member since Nov 2006
54201 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:10 pm to
quote:

Link to "screaming for"?


Any television the days after the shooting.
Posted by ALWho
Earth
Member since Oct 2014
612 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:41 pm to
[quote]quote:
Link to "screaming for"?


Any television the days after the shooting up until 8 pm CST Monday 11-24-2014.

FIFY
Posted by Politiceaux
Member since Feb 2009
17654 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:51 pm to
quote:

All this background is necessary to explain why it was so strange for the prosecutors in Ferguson case to announce that they were going to present evidence to the grand jury and then let it make up its own mind. Prosecutors never treat the grand jury that way. They present a case to the grand jury only if they are actively seeking to prosecute -- then they show the jury the prosecution’s side of the case, and direct the jury to indict if there is probable cause to go forward.
I'm a prosecutor and can certify that this paragraph is an absolute load of bullshite.
Posted by BeeFense5
Kenner
Member since Jul 2010
41290 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:54 pm to
quote:

Big Scrub TX


Melt Day 3
Posted by rintintin
Life is Life
Member since Nov 2008
16141 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:57 pm to
quote:

All this background is necessary to explain why it was so strange for the prosecutors in Ferguson case to announce that they were going to present evidence to the grand jury and then let it make up its own mind. 


So let me get this straight. This article is arguing that the above is somehow different than :

quote:

They present a case to the grand jury only if they are actively seeking to prosecute -- then they show the jury the prosecution’s side of the case, and direct the jury to indict if there is probable cause to go forward. 


They basically stated the same concept, just in different terms. They are the same. The only difference is the verbage used in describing it. This is the kind of stuff authors do to confuse and enrage idiots, which apparently the OP fell for.

The prosecutors presented the evidence to the grand jury, who decided not to indict due to lack of probable cause. That's exactly what they are supposed to frickingg do.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram