- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
D.A. should not hide behind grand jury...
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:25 am
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:25 am
If the facts show the witnesses are not credible and he is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, he should reject charges.
If the opposite, he should prosecute.
Grand Jury is not required and may only confuse the situation. In this case he is using it to hide behind. Sometimes this backfires.
A jury with no defense attorney or judge in the room is an outdated procedure and should be done away with anyway...
If the opposite, he should prosecute.
Grand Jury is not required and may only confuse the situation. In this case he is using it to hide behind. Sometimes this backfires.
A jury with no defense attorney or judge in the room is an outdated procedure and should be done away with anyway...
6
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:26 am to zeebo
too political...if the Grand jury doesn't agree with the charges, they wont indict
its the justice system...
its the justice system...
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:29 am to athletemed
According to the law, JJ should have been charged with felony battery. If the the grand jury decides it shouldn't go to trial, that's their choice. The da did what he was suppose to do, according to the law.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:31 am to zeebo
There's an expression: the DA could indict a ham sandwich. Meaning the grand jury will basically do whatever the DA wants. The DA decides what evidence to present and how to argue it. My gut says no charges from grand jury and the DA decides not to prosecute?
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:31 am to guttata
quote:
According to the law, JJ should have been charged with felony battery. If the the grand jury decides it shouldn't go to trial, that's their choice. The da did what he was suppose to do, according to the law.
lol wut
what law, witness accounts, no DNA or video evidence and many conflicting stories and you say the DA did what he was supposed to do.
thats complete bullshite and you know it.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:32 am to athletemed
the grand jury does what the DA advises them to do, 99% of the time. When they don't, it is called a "Runaway jury."
A decision either way could be justified depending on the facts.
It is an attempt to blame shift. (for the decision)
It is the most unjust part of our justice system.
DA had duty to prosecute, and duty to not prosecute, depending on facts.
A decision either way could be justified depending on the facts.
It is an attempt to blame shift. (for the decision)
It is the most unjust part of our justice system.
DA had duty to prosecute, and duty to not prosecute, depending on facts.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:32 am to zeebo
quote:Not really.
A jury with no defense attorney or judge in the room is an outdated procedure and should be done away with anyway...
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:35 am to Death Before Disco
The DA clearly said in his staement, that even without the DNA evidence, the Grand Jury will have enough evidence to do what it needs to do.
Translation: JJ/Johns will be indicted
Translation: JJ/Johns will be indicted
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:35 am to zeebo
The DA is in an impossible situation. If he thinks there is not enough evidence, then people will say it is bc he is an LSU fan or fan of JJ. If he thinks there is enough evidence, people will say it is bc he has an axe to grind with LSU or that he is a JJ hater. By removing himself from the process, he actually preserves the perception of integrity within the system. Not only is it a smart move- it's the only move.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:38 am to RobbBobb
quote:
The DA clearly said in his staement, that even without the DNA evidence, the Grand Jury will have enough evidence to do what it needs to do.
Translation: JJ/Johns will be indicted
Why does this keep getting lost in the story?
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:38 am to beauxroux
quote:This
The DA is in an impossible situation. If he thinks there is not enough evidence, then people will say it is bc he is an LSU fan or fan of JJ. If he thinks there is enough evidence, people will say it is bc he has an axe to grind with LSU or that he is a JJ hater. By removing himself from the process, he actually preserves the perception of integrity within the system. Not only is it a smart move- it's the only move.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:39 am to beauxroux
yeah, unless you know how a grand jury works.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:46 am to Nick Cest Bon
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:50 am to beauxroux
That's not an impossible situation. Do your job, who cares what some hacks say? He would be fine if he made a decision and stood behind it. Address the fact that some lame asses might be confused but point out why their reasoning is flawed. How hard is that? Instead he pusses out
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:55 am to Jaydeaux
Agreed 100%.
Everyone already knows that the DA will present the case to the grand jury. And the DA will get the grand jury to indict if he wants an indictment.
So I lose respect for Moore for taking this to the grand jury. It just looks like a politcal move.
Everyone already knows that the DA will present the case to the grand jury. And the DA will get the grand jury to indict if he wants an indictment.
So I lose respect for Moore for taking this to the grand jury. It just looks like a politcal move.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 9:15 am to zeebo
This is exactly why they have Grand Juries. Well this and capital cases that must go before a Grand Jury. It is a secret proceeding that protects the interest of all parties involved while rendering an "allegedly" impartial decision on whether or not to charge. It is meant to take the politics and political pressure out of the decision.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 9:16 am to beauxroux
This. Again this. 
Posted on 9/20/11 at 10:19 am to zeebo
...so-called "Grand Juries" do suck. NO rep for the accused. NO counter testimony. Prosecutors can "cherry pick" info presented.... a throwback process that is full of weaknesses ... the famous quote of someone who once said : "A decent prosecutor's office can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to .. " The DA can can certainly "tilt" a GJ the other way too, if so inclined .... 
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:25 pm to Jaydeaux
quote:
That's not an impossible situation. Do your job, who cares what some hacks say?
People that hold ELECTED offices? Duh. Lol
Posted on 9/20/11 at 8:30 pm to zeebo
quote:
yeah, unless you know how a grand jury works.
It's not how it work that matters, it's the common person's perception of how it works that matters.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News