MineralMan served on a grand jury so he' impotent.

[thundley4]

Star Member MineralMan (68,928 posts)   Tue Nov 25, 2014, 11:01 AM

I have served on a County Grand Jury.

Mostly, we did not deal with criminal cases during the year I was a member. We did, however, on two occasions. What I remember most clearly was that the District Attorney's representative decided what evidence to bring for consideration. It was clear from the beginning what that attorney wanted us to do. When we, as members of the Grand Jury began to use our privilege to ask our own questions, the Assistant District Attorney expressed his dislike for that very clearly. He wanted to just present his case, have us indict, and be done with it.

He tried very hard to control the process. Unfortunately for him, we knew what our rights were in such proceedings and exercised them. He was not amused, and even tried to get the supervising judge to tell us we couldn't do what we were doing. The judge, who was the one who told us what we could and could not do in the first place, put the Assistant District Attorney in his place immediately.

Grand Juries are all different, I suppose, but we saw clearly that what we were seeing was not the entire body of evidence, but only the evidence the D.A.'s office chose to present. The process is front-loaded.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025867807

I don't know hardly anything about grand juries, but don't they handle only criminal cases?

The Velveteen Ocelot (38,605 posts)
8. Bingo.

Looks like the Ferguson grand jury got a whole buttload of conflicting evidence - the stuff that would be presented at a trial. I don't think that prosecutor wanted an indictment (which is only a finding of probable cause), because the way the grand jury system works, if they really want a bill they'll get one.

They all pretty much think the prosecutor threw the case.

[Texacon]

I served on a grand jury.  The only thing we handled was felony cases, misdemeanors weren't even brought before us.

We were all told we could ask any and all questions we wanted to and there were a bunch of them we didn't indict.

Interestingly, the grand jury is the only place where if you are called as a witness you are not entitled to a lawyer and if you bring one with you, they will be politely asked to sit outside.

KC

[thundley4]

I served on a grand jury.  The only thing we handled was felony cases, misdemeanors weren't even brought before us.

We were all told we could ask any and all questions we wanted to and there were a bunch of them we didn't indict.

Interestingly, the grand jury is the only place where if you are called as a witness you are not entitled to a lawyer and if you bring one with you, they will be politely asked to sit outside.

KC

I was thinking that GJs handled only criminal cases and usually high profile cases or ones that could be.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The Velveteen Ocelot (38,605 posts)
8. Bingo.

Looks like the Ferguson grand jury got a whole buttload of conflicting evidence - the stuff that would be presented at a trial. I don't think that prosecutor wanted an indictment (which is only a finding of probable cause), because the way the grand jury system works, if they really want a bill they'll get one.

Except the Prosecutor, as an officer of the court and licensed attorney, also has an overarching obligation not knowingly rest that case on perjured testimony.  You'd have to be Al Sharpton not to acknowledge how much lying there was in the witness statements that were the only evidentiary support for indictment.

[Texacon]

Except the Prosecutor, as an officer of the court and licensed attorney, also has an overarching obligation not knowingly rest that case on perjured testimony.  You'd have to be Al Sharpton not to acknowledge how much lying there was in the witness statements that were the only evidentiary support for indictment.

You know DAT, when I was on the grand jury we had one really big case come before us.  HUGE for our county as it involved a county judges son.  When the witnesses started coming in to testify before us the outside attorneys who were handling the case were asking most of the questions and it was obvious to all of us in the room that a lot of the witnesses were lying and it upset us.

When there was a lull in the action I asked the attorney about that and he just smiled and said "we don't care if they lie, if this goes to court I'm going to lay this recorder out on the table and remind them of what they said to the grand jury and if it doesn't fit with the evidence ... well, they will have a problem."

After that statement we let them lie all they wanted to.  It was rather interesting to watch how those attorneys worked those witnesses.

KC

[JakeStyle]

MineralMan loves to talk about MineralMan, most of his posts are about MineralMan.

[miskie]

Primitives never cease to amuse me with their seemingly endless ability to contradict themselves on any position.

Primitives have been moaning about Grand Juries for decades - as 'rubber stamping' indictments because the prosecution runs the show

There is no judge involved.
There is no presentation by the defense.
There is no presumption of innocence, since nobody is on trial.

Anyway - here we have a Democrat D.A., who presents evidence to a Grand Jury exactly the way Democrats want it done, and now they are against the notion of a Grand Jury gaining complete, unfettered access to all of the known evidence.

It seems clear that these leftists assign presumption of guilt or innocence on a case-by-case basis, instead of appreciating a truly neutral standard as they publicly claim they do. Primitives should just remove their masks, and expose themselves proudly as the little tyrants they are.