- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
re: Statistic Regarding the % of Grand Juries Who Render an Indictment
Posted on 11/30/14 at 11:42 am to Turbeauxdog
Posted on 11/30/14 at 11:42 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
As has been said, the DA did not want to seek an indictment. His view was no charges were necessary. The grand jury was simply to appease race baiters and the emotionally irrational. Whether he was successful or not is obviously up for debate.
Imo, Wilson actually suffered more scrutiny than normal because the da's actions increased the chances he would be indicted by bringing it before the grand jury in the first place. He was not afforded more beneficial due process as you claim.
Political and social pressure forced some action.
0
Posted on 11/30/14 at 11:51 am to KCT
GJ's usually rubber stamp whatever the prosecution hands them. I was indicted for Ag assault with a deadly weapon without a shred of evidence. You know how I know they didn't have any? Because I didn't fricking do it, that's fricking why and if I. Hadn't fought it, which people are terrified to do in Texas I would still be rotting in a Texas prison
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:08 pm to Politiceaux
quote:
They keep trotting out the federal grand jury statistics which don't have any relation to state grand juries.
I noticed this too. The %s may be the same, idk, but you'd think they'd show the apples-to-apples comparison if it fit their agenda.
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:23 pm to Jbird
quote:Who besides Darren Wilson said this? Yet you buy it 100%.
He
Wasn't
Fleeing
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:24 pm to mmcgrath
Forensic evidence!
Other eye witnesses
But hey keep melting
Other eye witnesses
But hey keep melting
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:25 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Who besides Darren Wilson said this? Yet you buy it 100%.
Sure appears he evidence supports this. I suppose you prefer biased and conflicting eyewitness testimony.
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:27 pm to Elcid96
quote:Name them.
Forensic evidence!
Other eye witnesses
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:30 pm to mmcgrath
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:32 pm to mmcgrath
Google is your friend! I am not
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:45 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Who besides Darren Wilson said this? Yet you buy it 100%.
I think it was 7 witnesses
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:48 pm to DaGarun
quote:The percentage isn't close to the same. It's a different system entirely.
The %s may be the same, idk, but you'd think they'd show the apples-to-apples comparison if it fit their agenda.
Posted on 11/30/14 at 12:49 pm to KCT
quote:
I was watching Face the Nation, and Norah O'Donnell said that out of 162,000 cases brought by fore grand juries (forgot the year), those grand juries failed to indict ONLY 11 times.
Now, maybe she misspoke and meant to say 11,000 times, which would still be a very small percentage. But, she said these juries failed to indict only 11 times.
Can we please rephrase this to "decided not to indict" rather than failed? It's not their job to indict, it's their job to decide if there is enough evidence to indict. They didn't fail at anything. They decided not to indict. A small but somewhat effective way to insert a narrative into an otherwise seemingly neutral statement.
Posted on 11/30/14 at 1:05 pm to Iosh
quote:Couple of questions:
Mostly the prosecutor will pick a handful of strong witness statements / documents and rarely call the defendant at all. If they do, it'll be a quick and harsh cross-examination.
Is GJ questioning actually considered a cross-examination?
Isn't Defendant testimony in Grand Jury Proceedings both exceedingly rare and completely voluntary?
Doesn't it occur testifying without benefit of defense counsel?
Posted on 11/30/14 at 1:30 pm to KCT
quote:
I was watching Face the Nation, and Norah O'Donnell said that out of 162,000 cases brought by fore grand juries (forgot the year), those grand juries failed to indict ONLY 11 times.
I'd like to see her source on that.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News