GA - Rayshard Brooks, 27, fatally shot by Police, Wendy’s lot, Atlanta, 12 Jun 2020 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Yes. The defendant can be called to testify, however the defense attorney is not allowed to present evidence.

Right. He can only go before a grand jury to answer specific questions if he is called. If the prosecutor/grand jury do not have any questions for him, he is still not given an opportunity to speak before the grand jury.
 
Since the judge didn’t even want to hear from him today and postponed his appearance until Tuesday, I doubt that anyone will intervene.
It's not that the judge didn't want to hear from him today, it's that he waved his right to first appearance, meaning he can choose whether to be in the courtroom or not, as long as he has an attorney. The attorney can/will physically be at the arraignment with, or without the defendant.
Waving the right has to be done before the arraignment date, so I think it's fair to say that was done yesterday.
I read the warrants, and an arrest warrant was issued, meaning he has 72 hours to be arraigned from the time he was booked.
I think it's also fair to say that he was arraigned today (although I haven't read anything about it), he entered his plea through his attorney, and the charges were explained to him by his attorney.
If the judge postponed arraignment until Tuesday, that would be beyond the 72 hour limit.
What was postponed until Tuesday was the judge setting bail.
 
It's not that the judge didn't want to hear from him today, it's that he waved his right to first appearance, meaning he can choose whether to be in the courtroom or not, as long as he has an attorney. The attorney can/will physically be at the arraignment with, or without the defendant.
Waving the right has to be done before the arraignment date, so I think it's fair to say that was done yesterday.
I read the warrants, and an arrest warrant was issued, meaning he has 72 hours to be arraigned from the time he was booked.
I think it's also fair to say that he was arraigned today (although I haven't read anything about it), he entered his plea through his attorney, and the charges were explained to him by his attorney.
If the judge postponed arraignment until Tuesday, that would be beyond the 72 hour limit.
What was postponed until Tuesday was the judge setting bail.

ok thank you.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-rayshard-brooks-fatal-shooting-will-n1231557

Fulton County Magistrate Court Judge Jeffrey Frazier said the seriousness of charges against Rolfe prevented him from setting bail on Friday. Court records showed that a bond hearing for Rolfe has been scheduled for Tuesday at 2 p.m. ET.
 
You don't think overall crime has gone up ?Home invasions, carjackings, drive bys were rare or unheard of. Murder including by spouse or ex is more common. I read about one man who murdered his wife and two small children. The daughters were put in a tank of oil and the wife was buried close by in the ground. Assault and battery. But, on the plus side, bank robberies have probably gone down thanks to technology.
I haven't read the stats to compare, but around the mid/late 60's there were lots of violent riots, and protests. Civil rights, and Vietnam etc.
I do agree that people snap easier now overall IMO, and I believe that is because we are less sociable than ever.
I have nothing to base this on, but my thought is that before television , people got out of the house and did things. Then came VCR's and even drive in movies became a thing of the past. Then came computers, Skype, and other conveniences . Home schooling, online banking, food delivery, and other services in which nobody has to leave the house at all now.
Remember, there are lot more people than there was in the 1960's and with media in general, if someone gets murdered in California, you hear about it in Maryland. Back in the 1960's, you may read about it on page 5 of the newspaper, but news didn't travel like it does today. I think we hear about more bad things happening overall the moment it happens.
 
This is from your link. Either way I doubt Officer Rolfe will testify before a grand jury.
So if the DA says: "Mr. Brooks was cordial, co-operative, and even jovial with the officers before Officer Rolfe shot him''--- and leaves out the part about him assaulting the officers, taking a taser and shooting one of them, Rolfe just has to sit there and say nothing?
 
So if the DA says: "Mr. Brooks was cordial, co-operative, and even jovial with the officers before Officer Rolfe shot him''--- and leaves out the part about him assaulting the officers, taking a taser and shooting one of them, Rolfe just has to sit there and say nothing?

No one is allowed to attend their grand jury proceedings. This is behind closed doors, not in a courtroom or before a judge. Grand jurors usually meet near the prosecutors office and review multiple cases as evidence comes in. If they have further questions, they’ll call in witnesses, but at no time is Rolfe allowed to observe.
 
So if the DA says: "Mr. Brooks was cordial, co-operative, and even jovial with the officers before Officer Rolfe shot him''--- and leaves out the part about him assaulting the officers, taking a taser and shooting one of them, Rolfe just has to sit there and say nothing?
He has to sit there and say nothing unless he is questioned by the grand jury.
Having said that, I think it's safe to say he'll be asked questions.

In some cases, the grand jury will indict someone before they are even charged with a crime and the suspect has no clue there was a grand jury hearing at all.
For example, if I murder someone, and then I flee the country, and my DNA and fingerprints and other evidence is all over the crime scene, and the DA feels there's enough evidence to convict, there could be a grand jury indictment before I am even arrested.
 
He has to sit there and say nothing unless he is questioned by the grand jury.
Having said that, I think it's safe to say he'll be asked questions.

In some cases, the grand jury will indict someone before they are even charged with a crime and the suspect has no clue there was a grand jury hearing at all.
For example, if I murder someone, and then I flee the country, and my DNA and fingerprints and other evidence is all over the crime scene, and the DA feels there's enough evidence to convict, there could be a grand jury indictment before I am even arrested.
So is this statement incorrect: 'at no time is Rolfe allowed to observe'?
 
On January 6, 2020 Georgia police picked him up in Ohio for probation violation for failure to notify his probation officer he moved out of state. It's my opinion that when he went to court in GA, they decided to drop the charges, wash their hands of him and he would go back to Ohio. Little did they know he'd be back again.

I need to look back and find which article it was in but he also had a couple of past DUI charges, battery, felony cruelty, weapons charge, etc. it is quite a long list of stuff in GA and Ohio.
 
Rolfe will be allowed to remain in the room while the jury is in session.
He won't be allowed in the room when the jury deliberates.

I believe you are talking about a jury trial. That’s something different. Yes he can be there, but we were talking about grand jury.

He will not be allowed to watch the prosecutor present the evidence to grand jurors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here you go.
Rule 6, section d, subsection 1

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

While the Grand Jury Is in Session.The following persons may be present while the grand jury is in session: attorneys for the government, the witness being questioned, interpreters when needed, and a court reporter or an operator of a recording device.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
201
Guests online
281
Total visitors
482

Forum statistics

Threads
608,687
Messages
18,244,070
Members
234,422
Latest member
Investigation Queen
Back
Top