Abolish the Grand Jury

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course is orchestrated by the prosecutor you dumbass. Why the fuck would a defense lawyer seek an indictment?

You liberal pukes get dumber by the minute.

Excuse me , shit for brains

The Prosecutor is supposed to present its case


The Grand Jury if properly constituted , wants to prevent their fellow American from being exposed to irreparable injury. So. REGARDLESS of what the prosecutor wants it investigates to ascertain that the LAW and the FACTS are vailid - that they properly constitute probable cause to prosecute.


That is NO LONGER THE CASE - GRAND JURORS ARE IGNORANT , SPINELESS SCUMBAGS who don't give a shit about their fellow American or the US Constitution.


.

Grand jurors are ignorant? You are one stupid fuck!

s.

Listen fucktard,

Grand Jurors allow the prosecutors to use them, they take the position that if the prosecutor want to indict is because the facts and law are valid. Then they want to rush home and watch Oprah reruns.

.

You are too stupid for words.

As a government supremacist you can't handle the truth.


.

Nothing you stated was the truth.

It's obvious you have never sat on a grand jury.

After the grand jury is instructed on the law, they are shown evidence and hear testimony. It is up to the grand jury to determine whether enough evidence exist to indict. Even if the grand jury fails to indict the prosecutor can still bring the case to trial after demonstrating to a trial judge that enough evidence exist to continue with the case.

You assume jurors aren't smart enough to weigh the evidence to make a determination on whether to indict. You assume ALL grand juries return with indictments because they want to go home and watch your favorite show "Oprah". Nothing is further from the truth. But you're not honest enough to admit it.

Class dismissed!

 

[Katzndogz]

Getting rid of the Grand Jury will not help convict selected defendants any more than a trial jury. George Zimmerman didn't have a grand jury. He went right to trial. Did it help convict him in the absence of evidence? No.

What liberals really want is to scrap the entire system of justice and replace it with a restorative justice system. That's what this is all about. It's part of the liberal fundamental change.

 

[FA_Q2]

If the grand jury wasn't making the determination of sufficiency of evidence it would be made by a single judge.

Like I said the system must be reformed.

Without OBJECTIVE laws corruption and injustice will continue.

.

I know I am jumping in maybe with the wrong comment, but this ain't about law, it's pure hate and politics, Obama is a race baiting ass with the newspapers and television on his sude

This thread is about an institution created for a free country - which is no longer effective in the continuing criminal enterprise known as the --police state - the United States of America.

.

Your entire premise rests on the fact that Grand Juries end up indicting. You don't even bother to consider that deterrence to frivolous charges happens before a case is brought before a Grand Jury.

Because that is a rather unlikely supposition tbh. I don't believe that is actually the case. Rather, the high rate of 'success' for the prosecutor is likely due to the fact that they control the entire proceedings. The prosecutor can essentially rig the outcome.

 

[FA_Q2]

I served on a grand jury once - and it was totally orchestrated by the prosecuting attorney. I had already voted to indict a young man on several charges - but refused to indict him on one. Then, the prosecuting attorney tried to "persuade" me to change my no vote. I said no.

Of course is orchestrated by the prosecutor you dumbass. Why the fuck would a defense lawyer seek an indictment?

You liberal pukes get dumber by the minute.

That does not get at the heart of the issue presented though.

If the prosecutor controls everything then they can essentially force the preferred outcome. Is there another way of going about this, I do not know. I don't see why there cant at least be one other voice in the room though that balances the prosecutor's presentation.

 

[FA_Q2]

I served on a grand jury once - and it was totally orchestrated by the prosecuting attorney. I had already voted to indict a young man on several charges - but refused to indict him on one. Then, the prosecuting attorney tried to "persuade" me to change my no vote. I said no.

I was on a petit jury with a guy being railroaded.

I won't bore you with the details of the police corruption involved, but we voted 11-1 to acquit.

When I asked the Grubercrat who voted to convict why she did it, she said she thought that was what she was supposed to do.

This idiot had waited until we were in the Jury room before asking to be dismissed from the jury.

The bailiff told her to got sit down and vote.

We took a second vote, and it was 12-0 to acquit.

That is why I despise people who evade jury duty.

We are the last line of defense against injustice, either as grand jurors or petit jurors.

And therein lies the real problem. Almost everyone with a modicum or intelligence simply evades the duty completely. The only people that actually go are those that are to damn dumb to evade it or those that actually believe in civic duty (a trait that is FAR to rare today).

That is at the heart, IMHO, of the problems with juries today. How do you counter that though? Forcing people to sit on a jury certainly is not an equitable solution nor is that really possible in a truly free society. Of course, this is simply another SYMPTOM (not the actual problem) just like apathetic and ignorant voters. American society as a whole just seems to think that the government works without a civic minded population. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Pop23]

Shocking Revelations from the Rosenberg Grand Jury Files
By Roger Roots

November 18, 2009


The grand jury is an ancient common law institution whose original purpose was to protect people from the prosecutorial power of the government. Under the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution's Framers intended that no criminal charges could ever be initiated by the government alone. A citizen panel of 23 people (more or less) was supposed to act as an obstacle to prosecutors and ensure that any prosecution be preapproved by common people. Yet today most commentators agree that the government can get any grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." Federal "indictment rates" greater than 99 percent have been reported in some years. In 2001, federal grand juries declined to indict in only 21 cases nationwide. "These numbers suggest that, whatever the reason, the federal grand jury now exercises very little power as a shield between the government and its citizens."

_______


So back in the day the Grand Jurors were FREEMEN who tended to question authority. Now grand jurors and spineless sheeple who do not know their ass from a hole in the ground.

They see their job as merely rubber stamping whatever the Grand Prosecutor wants to do.



"Americans are stupid"

Jonathan Gruber

The grand jury puts citizens in between the accused and the government.

That's all I need to know

Anyone wanting that abolished is being foolish.

 

[FA_Q2]

Shocking Revelations from the Rosenberg Grand Jury Files
By Roger Roots

November 18, 2009


The grand jury is an ancient common law institution whose original purpose was to protect people from the prosecutorial power of the government. Under the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution's Framers intended that no criminal charges could ever be initiated by the government alone. A citizen panel of 23 people (more or less) was supposed to act as an obstacle to prosecutors and ensure that any prosecution be preapproved by common people. Yet today most commentators agree that the government can get any grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." Federal "indictment rates" greater than 99 percent have been reported in some years. In 2001, federal grand juries declined to indict in only 21 cases nationwide. "These numbers suggest that, whatever the reason, the federal grand jury now exercises very little power as a shield between the government and its citizens."

_______


So back in the day the Grand Jurors were FREEMEN who tended to question authority. Now grand jurors and spineless sheeple who do not know their ass from a hole in the ground.

They see their job as merely rubber stamping whatever the Grand Prosecutor wants to do.



"Americans are stupid"

Jonathan Gruber

The grand jury puts citizens in between the accused and the government.

That's all I need to know

Anyone wanting that abolished is being foolish.

And I don't think anyone actually called to abolish it. Cont has repeatedly said 'reform.'

Edit: Never mind - I passed right over the thread title lol.

 

[Contumacious]

Excuse me , shit for brains

The Prosecutor is supposed to present its case


The Grand Jury if properly constituted , wants to prevent their fellow American from being exposed to irreparable injury. So. REGARDLESS of what the prosecutor wants it investigates to ascertain that the LAW and the FACTS are vailid - that they properly constitute probable cause to prosecute.


That is NO LONGER THE CASE - GRAND JURORS ARE IGNORANT , SPINELESS SCUMBAGS who don't give a shit about their fellow American or the US Constitution.


.

Grand jurors are ignorant? You are one stupid fuck!

s.

Listen fucktard,

Grand Jurors allow the prosecutors to use them, they take the position that if the prosecutor want to indict is because the facts and law are valid. Then they want to rush home and watch Oprah reruns.

.

You are too stupid for words.

As a government supremacist you can't handle the truth.


.

Nothing you stated was the truth.

It's obvious you have never sat on a grand jury.

I sat as a Grand Juror in Dade County , Florida , circa 1985.

After the grand jury is instructed on the law, they are shown evidence and hear testimony

Why must Grand Jurors be "instructed on the law"........are they from Canada, Mexico.


They are protecting THEIR CONSTITUTION - why then can't they ascertain if the FACTS demonstrate that there is PROBABLE CAUSE to believe they are criminals.


Only Hawaii allows Grand Jurors to have their own attorney.


Unfortunately, I am sure that only government supremacist attorneys get to be in their panel.


.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I served on a grand jury once - and it was totally orchestrated by the prosecuting attorney. I had already voted to indict a young man on several charges - but refused to indict him on one. Then, the prosecuting attorney tried to "persuade" me to change my no vote. I said no.

I was on a petit jury with a guy being railroaded.

I won't bore you with the details of the police corruption involved, but we voted 11-1 to acquit.

When I asked the Grubercrat who voted to convict why she did it, she said she thought that was what she was supposed to do.

This idiot had waited until we were in the Jury room before asking to be dismissed from the jury.

The bailiff told her to got sit down and vote.

We took a second vote, and it was 12-0 to acquit.

That is why I despise people who evade jury duty.

We are the last line of defense against injustice, either as grand jurors or petit jurors.

And therein lies the real problem. Almost everyone with a modicum or intelligence simply evades the duty completely. The only people that actually go are those that are to damn dumb to evade it or those that actually believe in civic duty (a trait that is FAR to rare today).

That is at the heart, IMHO, of the problems with juries today. How do you counter that though? Forcing people to sit on a jury certainly is not an equitable solution nor is that really possible in a truly free society. Of course, this is simply another SYMPTOM (not the actual problem) just like apathetic and ignorant voters. American society as a whole just seems to think that the government works without a civic minded population. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One possibility is professional , paid jurors. Well I mean you already get paid for jury duty , but I'm talking about full time jurors.

 

[Roadrunner]

Shocking Revelations from the Rosenberg Grand Jury Files
By Roger Roots

November 18, 2009


The grand jury is an ancient common law institution whose original purpose was to protect people from the prosecutorial power of the government. Under the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution's Framers intended that no criminal charges could ever be initiated by the government alone. A citizen panel of 23 people (more or less) was supposed to act as an obstacle to prosecutors and ensure that any prosecution be preapproved by common people. Yet today most commentators agree that the government can get any grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." Federal "indictment rates" greater than 99 percent have been reported in some years. In 2001, federal grand juries declined to indict in only 21 cases nationwide. "These numbers suggest that, whatever the reason, the federal grand jury now exercises very little power as a shield between the government and its citizens."

_______


So back in the day the Grand Jurors were FREEMEN who tended to question authority. Now grand jurors and spineless sheeple who do not know their ass from a hole in the ground.

They see their job as merely rubber stamping whatever the Grand Prosecutor wants to do.



"Americans are stupid"

Jonathan Gruber

The grand jury puts citizens in between the accused and the government.

That's all I need to know

Anyone wanting that abolished is being foolish.

Liberals are against most of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Shocking Revelations from the Rosenberg Grand Jury Files
By Roger Roots

November 18, 2009


The grand jury is an ancient common law institution whose original purpose was to protect people from the prosecutorial power of the government. Under the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution's Framers intended that no criminal charges could ever be initiated by the government alone. A citizen panel of 23 people (more or less) was supposed to act as an obstacle to prosecutors and ensure that any prosecution be preapproved by common people. Yet today most commentators agree that the government can get any grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." Federal "indictment rates" greater than 99 percent have been reported in some years. In 2001, federal grand juries declined to indict in only 21 cases nationwide. "These numbers suggest that, whatever the reason, the federal grand jury now exercises very little power as a shield between the government and its citizens."

_______


So back in the day the Grand Jurors were FREEMEN who tended to question authority. Now grand jurors and spineless sheeple who do not know their ass from a hole in the ground.

They see their job as merely rubber stamping whatever the Grand Prosecutor wants to do.



"Americans are stupid"

Jonathan Gruber

The grand jury puts citizens in between the accused and the government.

That's all I need to know

Anyone wanting that abolished is being foolish.

Liberals are against most of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

Not quite true

Liberals are against YOU having most of the rights in the BoR, they themselves however............

 

[Contumacious]

Getting rid of the Grand Jury will not help convict selected defendants any more than a trial jury. George Zimmerman didn't have a grand jury. He went right to trial. Did it help convict him in the absence of evidence? No.

What liberals really want is to scrap the entire system of justice and replace it with a restorative justice system. That's what this is all about. It's part of the liberal fundamental change.

Be that as it may, what I want is ballsy GRAND JURORS who have no fear to question authority , who can tell a prosecutor show me the FACTS and we will take it from there.


As it is , petit jurors now believe that if the Grand Jury indicted Joe Blow then he must be guilty.

.

 

[Pop23]

Grand juries are always questioned when their decision does not go one way or the other. Still, having a group of citizens standing between the individual and the POWER of the government is a very good thing.

 

[FA_Q2]

Shocking Revelations from the Rosenberg Grand Jury Files
By Roger Roots

November 18, 2009


The grand jury is an ancient common law institution whose original purpose was to protect people from the prosecutorial power of the government. Under the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution's Framers intended that no criminal charges could ever be initiated by the government alone. A citizen panel of 23 people (more or less) was supposed to act as an obstacle to prosecutors and ensure that any prosecution be preapproved by common people. Yet today most commentators agree that the government can get any grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." Federal "indictment rates" greater than 99 percent have been reported in some years. In 2001, federal grand juries declined to indict in only 21 cases nationwide. "These numbers suggest that, whatever the reason, the federal grand jury now exercises very little power as a shield between the government and its citizens."

_______


So back in the day the Grand Jurors were FREEMEN who tended to question authority. Now grand jurors and spineless sheeple who do not know their ass from a hole in the ground.

They see their job as merely rubber stamping whatever the Grand Prosecutor wants to do.



"Americans are stupid"

Jonathan Gruber

The grand jury puts citizens in between the accused and the government.

That's all I need to know

Anyone wanting that abolished is being foolish.

Liberals are against most of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

I find that conservatives tend to be against some as well....

 

[FA_Q2]

I served on a grand jury once - and it was totally orchestrated by the prosecuting attorney. I had already voted to indict a young man on several charges - but refused to indict him on one. Then, the prosecuting attorney tried to "persuade" me to change my no vote. I said no.

I was on a petit jury with a guy being railroaded.

I won't bore you with the details of the police corruption involved, but we voted 11-1 to acquit.

When I asked the Grubercrat who voted to convict why she did it, she said she thought that was what she was supposed to do.

This idiot had waited until we were in the Jury room before asking to be dismissed from the jury.

The bailiff told her to got sit down and vote.

We took a second vote, and it was 12-0 to acquit.

That is why I despise people who evade jury duty.

We are the last line of defense against injustice, either as grand jurors or petit jurors.

And therein lies the real problem. Almost everyone with a modicum or intelligence simply evades the duty completely. The only people that actually go are those that are to damn dumb to evade it or those that actually believe in civic duty (a trait that is FAR to rare today).

That is at the heart, IMHO, of the problems with juries today. How do you counter that though? Forcing people to sit on a jury certainly is not an equitable solution nor is that really possible in a truly free society. Of course, this is simply another SYMPTOM (not the actual problem) just like apathetic and ignorant voters. American society as a whole just seems to think that the government works without a civic minded population. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One possibility is professional , paid jurors. Well I mean you already get paid for jury duty , but I'm talking about full time jurors.

That idea has always interested me. It does speak against a jury of your 'peers' though as well as quite easily corrupted. I am somewhat on the fence about a professional jury.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I served on a grand jury once - and it was totally orchestrated by the prosecuting attorney. I had already voted to indict a young man on several charges - but refused to indict him on one. Then, the prosecuting attorney tried to "persuade" me to change my no vote. I said no.

Of course is orchestrated by the prosecutor you dumbass. Why the fuck would a defense lawyer seek an indictment?

You liberal pukes get dumber by the minute.

That does not get at the heart of the issue presented though.

If the prosecutor controls everything then they can essentially force the preferred outcome. Is there another way of going about this, I do not know. I don't see why there cant at least be one other voice in the room though that balances the prosecutor's presentation.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the function of a grand jury. Let me try to explain it as simple as possible.

The grand jury's responsibility is to look at the evidence and hear testimony to determine if there is enough to warrant an indictment. An indictment is not a determination of guilt, it simply states that enough evidence exist to go to trial.

No defense attorney is present during this hearing. Because it is not a trial!

You people need to do a little research into this subject before commenting on it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Grand jurors are ignorant? You are one stupid fuck!

s.

Listen fucktard,

Grand Jurors allow the prosecutors to use them, they take the position that if the prosecutor want to indict is because the facts and law are valid. Then they want to rush home and watch Oprah reruns.

.

You are too stupid for words.

As a government supremacist you can't handle the truth.


.

Nothing you stated was the truth.

It's obvious you have never sat on a grand jury.

I sat as a Grand Juror in Dade County , Florida , circa 1985.

After the grand jury is instructed on the law, they are shown evidence and hear testimony

Why must Grand Jurors be "instructed on the law"........are they from Canada, Mexico.


They are protecting THEIR CONSTITUTION - why then can't they ascertain if the FACTS demonstrate that there is PROBABLE CAUSE to believe they are criminals.


Only Hawaii allows Grand Jurors to have their own attorney.


Unfortunately, I am sure that only government supremacist attorneys get to be in their panel.


.

I think you're a liar. I don't believe for a second you sat on a Grand Jury.

 

[FA_Q2]

I served on a grand jury once - and it was totally orchestrated by the prosecuting attorney. I had already voted to indict a young man on several charges - but refused to indict him on one. Then, the prosecuting attorney tried to "persuade" me to change my no vote. I said no.

Of course is orchestrated by the prosecutor you dumbass. Why the fuck would a defense lawyer seek an indictment?

You liberal pukes get dumber by the minute.

That does not get at the heart of the issue presented though.

If the prosecutor controls everything then they can essentially force the preferred outcome. Is there another way of going about this, I do not know. I don't see why there cant at least be one other voice in the room though that balances the prosecutor's presentation.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the function of a grand jury. Let me try to explain it as simple as possible.

The grand jury's responsibility is to look at the evidence and hear testimony to determine if there is enough to warrant an indictment. An indictment is not a determination of guilt, it simply states that enough evidence exist to go to trial.

No defense attorney is present during this hearing. Because it is not a trial!

You people need to do a little research into this subject before commenting on it.

I understand full well what a grand jury is supposed to do.

You, apparently, don't bother to think or understand anything that other people are stating. Until you bother to actually address point raised in my comments don't bother quoting them.

If the best you can do is 'let me educate you simpleton' then buzz off.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I served on a grand jury once - and it was totally orchestrated by the prosecuting attorney. I had already voted to indict a young man on several charges - but refused to indict him on one. Then, the prosecuting attorney tried to "persuade" me to change my no vote. I said no.

Of course is orchestrated by the prosecutor you dumbass. Why the fuck would a defense lawyer seek an indictment?

You liberal pukes get dumber by the minute.

That does not get at the heart of the issue presented though.

If the prosecutor controls everything then they can essentially force the preferred outcome. Is there another way of going about this, I do not know. I don't see why there cant at least be one other voice in the room though that balances the prosecutor's presentation.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the function of a grand jury. Let me try to explain it as simple as possible.

The grand jury's responsibility is to look at the evidence and hear testimony to determine if there is enough to warrant an indictment. An indictment is not a determination of guilt, it simply states that enough evidence exist to go to trial.

No defense attorney is present during this hearing. Because it is not a trial!

You people need to do a little research into this subject before commenting on it.

I understand full well what a grand jury is supposed to do.

You, apparently, don't bother to think or understand anything that other people are stating. Until you bother to actually address point raised in my comments don't bother quoting them.

If the best you can do is 'let me educate you simpleton' then buzz off.

I understand you idiots perfectly. You have no idea what a grand jury's purpose is and it's evident by the dumbass comments made. I mean really.....a voice .....to balance the prosecutor's presentation??? That in itself shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Yes, yes abolish grand juries and illiterate juries like OJ Simpsons !