- 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
re: Allegedly, Madison Brooks had sex the day before incident that caused that caused injuries
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:52 pm to Chad504boy
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:52 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
she was drunk at the bar, stumbling, too drunk to find friends, words slurring, they assisted her walking across the parking lot,
She was actually running
quote:
she tried to go into a wrong car,
prove it
quote:
carver knew it was wrong, said they finna rape her, video of her screaming get off,
Thats gonna be the kicker if they can price that
quote:
leaving her off the side of the road in a condition where she gets hit by a car standing in the middle of the highway.
That has nothing to do with these charges of rape
quote:
Here's my shock face you're looking for desperate measures to support rapers raping.
Here's my shocked face of not giving a frick what you think
1
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:57 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
but a grand jury only needs to consider if a crime was "probably" committed.
That’s not how it works
You are told about the incident/crime you are presented all the DA’s evidence and even offered testimony by witnesses, then you are told the criteria the law requires for a conviction of that particular crime
Then you need to unanimously vote that the evidence is sufficient for a jury to find the accused guilty, if everyone can’t agree that a conviction is probable based on the evidence you no bill it.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:58 pm to Old Sarge
There it is.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:02 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
tgrbaitn08
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/LINK
How about you actually digest all the details of events from the rapers own mouths. Its sick and disgusting. All the details are there. None of which you are interested in while you attack a deceased and inarguably raped girl.
Congrats on the holding onto of a 16 yr old picture. You're a fricking loser.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:02 pm to dukke v
quote:
There it is.
There what is?
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:03 pm to Old Sarge
That's my understanding of the law.
The limitation on the grand jury (and why all grand jury indictments don't result in convictions) is that they are only presented with the prosecution's evidence. However, it behooves the prosecution to present all the evidence to get a preview of what a jury considering the same evidence would do. We don't know what the prosecution showed in this case because grand jury proceedings are sealed.
The poster is also correct that the legal standard for conviction is different. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof.
My point is only that the grand jury indictment is meaningful and gives some indication of what a jury will do in this case.
The limitation on the grand jury (and why all grand jury indictments don't result in convictions) is that they are only presented with the prosecution's evidence. However, it behooves the prosecution to present all the evidence to get a preview of what a jury considering the same evidence would do. We don't know what the prosecution showed in this case because grand jury proceedings are sealed.
The poster is also correct that the legal standard for conviction is different. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof.
My point is only that the grand jury indictment is meaningful and gives some indication of what a jury will do in this case.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:04 pm to JasonDBlaha
quote:
All she had to do was simply say no to the guys who asked her to come with them and none of this would have happened.
I think you have this wrong.. They never asked her to come with them, she asked for a ride..
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:04 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
Chad504boy
If you say they're guilty then I guess there's no reason to go to trial
Case Closed
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:04 pm to tgrbaitn08
Grand jury idiot….
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:05 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
That’s not how it works
You are told about the incident/crime you are presented all the DA’s evidence and even offered testimony by witnesses, then you are told the criteria the law requires for a conviction of that particular crime
Then you need to unanimously vote that the evidence is sufficient for a jury to find the accused guilty, if everyone can’t agree that a conviction is probable based on the evidence you no bill it.
I just finished serving on a grand jury. Unanimity isn't required, nor is the consideration of a conviction. You only hear from the DA or the US Attorneys, none of the defense. The only thing you consider is if there was probable cause that charges are warranted.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:07 pm to dukke v
quote:
Grand jury idiot….
Do you know how a grand jury works?
I dont think you do
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:07 pm to JDPndahizzy
Her asking for a ride can be pivotal, but just asking for a ride is not a substitute for consent.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:07 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
If you say they're guilty then I guess there's no reason to go to trial
Case Closed
about the only correct thing you've typed in this thread.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:08 pm to Ingeniero
Different states maybe?
We could ask to have victims and witnesses come before us as well as experts, we could also interview the investigators and arresting officers
We could ask to have victims and witnesses come before us as well as experts, we could also interview the investigators and arresting officers
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:08 pm to dukke v
quote:
Her asking for a ride can be pivotal, but just asking for a ride is not a substitute for consent.
peej, go read the entire document i just linked. quit fricking going over details with these retards on this board. Go read the entire thing.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:08 pm to Ingeniero
Here's the law in Louisiana:
Art. 443. When indictment to be found
The grand jury shall find an indictment, charging the defendant with the commission of an offense, when, in its judgment, the evidence considered by it, if unexplained and uncontradicted, warrants a conviction.
Art. 444. Action by grand jury
A. A grand jury shall have power to act, concerning a matter, only in one of the following ways:
(1) By returning a true bill;
(2) By returning not a true bill; or
(3) By pretermitting entirely the matter investigated.
The grand jury is an accusatory body and not a censor of public morals. It shall make no report or recommendation, other than to report its action as aforesaid.
B. At least nine members of the grand jury must concur in returning "a true bill" or "not a true bill." A matter may be pretermitted by a vote of at least nine members of the grand jury, or as a consequence of the failure of nine of the grand jury members to agree on a finding.
C. A grand jury may make such reports or requests as are authorized by law.
Art. 443. When indictment to be found
The grand jury shall find an indictment, charging the defendant with the commission of an offense, when, in its judgment, the evidence considered by it, if unexplained and uncontradicted, warrants a conviction.
Art. 444. Action by grand jury
A. A grand jury shall have power to act, concerning a matter, only in one of the following ways:
(1) By returning a true bill;
(2) By returning not a true bill; or
(3) By pretermitting entirely the matter investigated.
The grand jury is an accusatory body and not a censor of public morals. It shall make no report or recommendation, other than to report its action as aforesaid.
B. At least nine members of the grand jury must concur in returning "a true bill" or "not a true bill." A matter may be pretermitted by a vote of at least nine members of the grand jury, or as a consequence of the failure of nine of the grand jury members to agree on a finding.
C. A grand jury may make such reports or requests as are authorized by law.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:10 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
That’s not how it works
You are told about the incident/crime you are presented all the DA’s evidence and even offered testimony by witnesses, then you are told the criteria the law requires for a conviction of that particular crime
Then you need to unanimously vote that the evidence is sufficient for a jury to find the accused guilty, if everyone can’t agree that a conviction is probable based on the evidence you no bill it.
But wasn't the grand jury only sown a "snippet" of the video? Why did the DA not present the entire video? I don't know how that stuff works.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:12 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
PeeJ and Chad504Boy already convicted them without hearing the case by the defense......
Case is closed
Case is closed
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:13 pm to Old Sarge
Interesting. Unanimity still isn't required, but bulletproof posted the Louisiana statute and I was wrong about the "uncontradicted, results in a conviction" line. Instructions weren't given to us that way but the way it's written absolutely does say that.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 3:13 pm to Chad504boy
Damn you’re such a great forensic analyzer. Where did you get your law degree at? Google?
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 3:16 pm
Page 28 of 41
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News