Grand Juries should NOT be comprised of all DC democrats. We need a new law.... (Poll)

[Hutch Starskey]

It’s very lopsided and unfair. The prosecutor charging the person with a crime (like Daniel Penney) presents his side to the jury, using all his skills and knowledge gained in law school and legal work - and the defendant cannot have any legal defense but only speak for himself.

IOW, trained and practiced lawyer presents one side. Layman defendant presents the other.

When has a criminal defendant ever had a say as to whether or not they are criminally indicted?

 

[Lisa558]

When has a criminal defendant ever had a say as to whether or not they are criminally indicted?

The Grand Jury is set up to allow the prosecutor to present his case, and the defendant not defend himself. What’s the point?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The Grand Jury is set up to allow the prosecutor to present his case, and the defendant not defend himself. What’s the point?

The point is so that a jury of peers makes the decision to charge after seeing the evidence instead of just the prosecutor making the decision. It’s meant to make the charging decision more clean and free of corruption.

When does a defendant ever get a say in whether or not they are charged?

 

[Coyote]

It’s very lopsided and unfair. The prosecutor charging the person with a crime (like Daniel Penney) presents his side to the jury, using all his skills and knowledge gained in law school and legal work - and the defendant cannot have any legal defense but only speak for himself.

IOW, trained and practiced lawyer presents one side. Layman defendant presents the other.

It does seem unfair to the defendant and that made me curious because I really know very little about Grand Juries.

Why do we them in the first place?

Grand jury | Description, Purpose, History, & Facts

Grand jury, in Anglo-American law, a group that examines accusations against persons charged with crime and, if the evidence warrants, makes formal charges on which the accused persons are later tried. Its function is to decide whether there is ‘probable cause’ to believe that a person has...

www.britannica.com

The grand jury originated in medieval England; it was in use by the reign of Henry III (1216–72). It is distinctively a development of the common law(i.e., law based on judicial decisions, as evolved in England and the United States). Initially, the grand jury both accused and tried suspects, but these functions were later separated. The grand jury’s purpose was to prevent oppressive prosecution by the English crown through a citizens’ hearing prior to actual prosecution.

In practice, grand juries generally rubber-stamp the wishes of prosecutors; this, together with the cost of the grand jury, has led some nations to abolish or seriously restrict its operation. In England the grand jury was abolished partially in 1933 and completely in 1948. In the United States the right to a grand-jury indictment for serious crimes is safeguarded in federal courts by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. But the federal criminal code permits prosecutors to initiate all cases except those involving capital crimes if the accused waives indictment by a grand jury.

Waivers are frequent, and most prosecutions of even serious offenses in the federal courts are thus initiated by prosecutors. The Supreme Courthas held that the grand jury requirement in the Fifth Amendment does not require state courts to use grand juries. Because of this, some U.S. states have abolished the grand jury and many others have significantly limited its use. These states, subject to various regulations, authorize charges of serious crimes through an instrument known as an information without review by grand juries

So…if I understand it correctly, the defendant has a Constitutional right to a grand jury or he can waive it and the prosecutor then initiates charges. The grand jury then is a limited opportunity for the defendant to make a case that might result in no indictments being returned as opposed to the prosecutor directly charging him.

 

[Coyote]

The point is so that a jury of peers makes the decision to charge after seeing the evidence instead of just the prosecutor making the decision. It’s meant to make the charging decision more clean and free of corruption.

When does a defendant ever get a say in whether or not they are charged?

Exactly.

 

[Lisa558]

The point is so that a jury of peers makes the decision to charge after seeing the evidence instead of just the prosecutor making the decision. It’s meant to make the charging decision more clean and free of corruption.

When does a defendant ever get a say in whether or not they are charged?

That would work, theoretically, if indeed those making the decision ARE a jury of one’s peers. In DC, the judge and jury will be made up of vehement anti-Trumpsters who have been brainwashed into believing Trump was responsible for Jan 6.

Do they know that Trump asked for security, and was denied? That the crowd was calm until the Capitol police fired into it? That the Capitol police invited protestors in? The whole thing was a set-up, but the Dc Grand Jury of Trump’s non-peers wouldn’t have heard of that.

 

[Lisa558]

It does seem unfair to the defendant and that made me curious because I really know very little about Grand Juries.

Why do we them in the first place?

Grand jury | Description, Purpose, History, & Facts

Grand jury, in Anglo-American law, a group that examines accusations against persons charged with crime and, if the evidence warrants, makes formal charges on which the accused persons are later tried. Its function is to decide whether there is ‘probable cause’ to believe that a person has...

www.britannica.com

The grand jury originated in medieval England; it was in use by the reign of Henry III (1216–72). It is distinctively a development of the common law(i.e., law based on judicial decisions, as evolved in England and the United States). Initially, the grand jury both accused and tried suspects, but these functions were later separated. The grand jury’s purpose was to prevent oppressive prosecution by the English crown through a citizens’ hearing prior to actual prosecution.

In practice, grand juries generally rubber-stamp the wishes of prosecutors; this, together with the cost of the grand jury, has led some nations to abolish or seriously restrict its operation. In England the grand jury was abolished partially in 1933 and completely in 1948. In the United States the right to a grand-jury indictment for serious crimes is safeguarded in federal courts by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. But the federal criminal code permits prosecutors to initiate all cases except those involving capital crimes if the accused waives indictment by a grand jury.

Waivers are frequent, and most prosecutions of even serious offenses in the federal courts are thus initiated by prosecutors. The Supreme Courthas held that the grand jury requirement in the Fifth Amendment does not require state courts to use grand juries. Because of this, some U.S. states have abolished the grand jury and many others have significantly limited its use. These states, subject to various regulations, authorize charges of serious crimes through an instrument known as an information without review by grand juries

So…if I understand it correctly, the defendant has a Constitutional right to a grand jury or he can waive it and the prosecutor then initiates charges. The grand jury then is a limited opportunity for the defendant to make a case that might result in no indictments being returned as opposed to the prosecutor directly charging him.

Thank you for this information. It seems as if it’s set up to provide the defendant with the opportunity to show that the case shouldn’t be brought to trial, but even so it seems unfair: why shouldn’t the defendant have a lawyer defend him when he is going up against a professional lawyer on the other side?

 

[Coyote]

Thank you for this information. It seems as if it’s set up to provide the defendant with the opportunity to show that the case shouldn’t be brought to trial, but even so it seems unfair: why shouldn’t the defendant have a lawyer defend him when he is going up against a professional lawyer on the other side?

Well..it isn’t an actual trial is my guess. I had no idea it was tied to the Constitution.

 

[Lesh]

It’s set up to see if the prosecution has enough evidence to go forward to trial

Without it many many more cases would go to trial and that’s not a great thing

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That would work, theoretically, if indeed those making the decision ARE a jury of one’s peers. In DC, the judge and jury will be made up of vehement anti-Trumpsters who have been brainwashed into believing Trump was responsible for Jan 6.

Do they know that Trump asked for security, and was denied? That the crowd was calm until the Capitol police fired into it? That the Capitol police invited protestors in? The whole thing was a set-up, but the Dc Grand Jury of Trump’s non-peers wouldn’t have heard of that.

Peers just means fellow citizens.
A GJ was also used in FLA and Trump was also indicted.
They only look at the evidence of criminality and decide if it warrants a charge based on the law. That is their only function.
It’s not the venue to present other evidence.

It should set your mind at ease knowing members of the general public made the decision and not just prosecutors.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Thank you for this information. It seems as if it’s set up to provide the defendant with the opportunity to show that the case shouldn’t be brought to trial, but even so it seems unfair: why shouldn’t the defendant have a lawyer defend him when he is going up against a professional lawyer on the other side?

A defendant gets no say at all if indicted by a prosecutor. They’re simply arrested, arraigned and either let out on bail or locked up. I’d say Trump got off easier than most.

 

[JoeB131]

I am further left, progressive, liberal then you are, but clearly the indictments as well as the impeachments against Trump were all totally illegal, made up, and intended to prevent elections.

You might be. My problem with Trump was never his politics in so much as it was his character. I had just as much a problem with Bill Clinton when he was president for pretty much the same reason.

Trump is unfit to be president because he lacks the ethics, intelligence, and human empathy to do the job. That he just recycles the same old Republican bad ideas and adds a few of his own is besides the point.

He did commit the crimes he was indicted for. His argument seems to be the same one Nixon made, that if the president does it, it becomes legal. That argument didn't fly for Tricky Dick, and it won't fly now.

 

[JoeB131]

It’s very lopsided and unfair. The prosecutor charging the person with a crime (like Daniel Penney) presents his side to the jury, using all his skills and knowledge gained in law school and legal work - and the defendant cannot have any legal defense but only speak for himself.

IOW, trained and practiced lawyer presents one side. Layman defendant presents the other.

Okay, um, so what?
I should point out that prosecutors only go to grand juries when there isn't enough clear evidence. If they catch you on video tape knocking over a liquor store, they aren't going to a grand jury, they are offering you a plea bargain to not waste anyone's time.

Daniel Penney's problem is that he used a lethal chokehold on a man for 15 minutes knowing it was lethal, because his training was that of a US Marine.

 

[Lisa558]

A defendant gets no say at all if indicted by a prosecutor. They’re simply arrested, arraigned and either let out on bail or locked up. I’d say Trump got off easier than most.

The only reason Trump was indicted is because he IS Trump, and the Dems are trying to block him from running for president. Basically, he’s being indicted for challenging the results of an election which half the people had doubts about, given the unprecedented anomalies.

 

[kyzr]

Peers just means fellow citizens.
A GJ was also used in FLA and Trump was also indicted.
They only look at the evidence of criminality and decide if it warrants a charge based on the law. That is their only function.
It’s not the venue to present other evidence.
It should set your mind at ease knowing members of the general public made the decision and not just prosecutors.

Who defines the "general public"? In DC that means all democrats.
The general public should mean that the jury gets approved by both the prosecutor and the accused, and is a balanced cross-section of the population.

 

[kyzr]

Okay, um, so what?
I should point out that prosecutors only go to grand juries when there isn't enough clear evidence. If they catch you on video tape knocking over a liquor store, they aren't going to a grand jury, they are offering you a plea bargain to not waste anyone's time.
Daniel Penney's problem is that he used a lethal chokehold on a man for 15 minutes knowing it was lethal, because his training was that of a US Marine.

Daniel Penny restrained a violent criminal with a long rap sheet who threatened to kill passengers.
He deserves a medal for stepping up to protect the other passengers.

 

[surada]

1. The DOJ wants DC juries when going after Trump, like the classified doc case. That jury should have been in FL.
2. Not exclude anyone, balance the jury politically.

That's not where Trump broke the law.

 

[Lisa558]

Daniel Penny restrained a violent criminal with a long rap sheet who threatened to kill passengers.
He deserves a medal for stepping up to protect the other passengers.

Yup. And are you aware that a week later, another black homeless lunatic was harassing passengers on the NY subway (although not threatening to kill anyone, like Neely did), and another passenger stabbed him to death?

That case was worse because the other passenger INTENTIONALLY killed the lunatic, and then he fled the scene. But a Grand Jury declined to have him charged.

What was the difference between that case and Penny’s? He was black, so all is forgiven.

 

[Toro]

We cannot have a fair trial when the DC juries (and Grand Juries) are comprised of all democrats.

I hope someone appeals to higher courts to ensure that juries (and Grande Juries) are comprised of politically balanced juries.

‘Tribal’ D.C. juries align with Biden and Democrats

Some Jan. 6 defendants are citing research firm surveys of Washington juror pools to expose biases, they say, that would prevent them from receiving fair trials.

www.washingtontimes.com

Not surprisingly, survey answers show how the heavily Democratic, government-centric city is in line with how elected Democrats view the Republican Trump-supporting protesters and their Capitol Building invasion. One defense attorney labeled Washington a place of “extreme community prejudice” with “an absolute lack of political diversity” and “tribal political landscape.”

 

[Captain Caveman]

Why just DC? How about juries in deep red states? Who decides which side of a political line is a bias?

Either way…bad idea. This is deliberately politicizing our judicial system at its most important point: a trial by an independent jury. If they feel they can’t get a fair trial they can always ask for a different venue.

If I've been following America's news correctly, did the Left not have a melt down when Trump elected Right Wing supreme court justices?

So I assume there's no Left Wing screaming because the majority of jurors are Left Wing?

You guys advertise your political hypocrisy on your shirt sleeves.