As I'm in the UK rather than the US, could someone explain the situations around the necessity for Grand Juries and Special Prosecutors?
GJ: What is this? I am under the impression that a GJ convenes to asses whether there is sufficient evidence to bring the matter to trial. What is the point of this - isn't that the job of a prosecutor or a judge? Surely if the GJ decides that there is sufficient evidence for a trial they're pretty much saying "you're guilty, mate" so why not just have a trial from the start?
SP: What is a "Special Prosecutor" and why are they needed? Surely a prosecution is brought by the District Attorney" or some body or person similar to the Crown Prosecution Service here? The name Special Prosecutor, implies, to me at least, that the matter at hand is some fiendishly complicated set of circumstances or something involving national security issues or similar. This, however, is just a fairly straight forward criminal trial which, if it didn't involve a high profile person, no one would ever have heard about. If this were a couple of high school students making a movie for film class would they also need a special prosecutor and Grand Jury?
There are two ways to indict someone criminally in the United States. The Grand Jury is one of them. There's no way that our system of justice would work if prosecutors could just unilaterally decide to charge someone. It has to go before a judge. If a Grand Jury says that it thinks there's enough evidence to indict, the judge still has to approve it (cf. the Jon Benet case).
The other way is through an arrest warrant, signed by a judge after LE/Prosecution present sworn facts to the judge. This is the more common way.
Then, in each case, the defendant has the right to move to dismiss charges. Again, the judge has to weigh in (but now with facts presented by the defendant also on hand). Judge can move it on to trial, or dismiss it.
We simply do not allow the prosecution to arrest whoever they want.
Special Prosecutors are brought on for many different reasons, but the one I see the most is to make sure that some full time and competent prosecutor is bringing the case to trial. In states or counties with low populations (like Santa Fe), taking regular prosecutors off their jobs is often frowned upon by local residents. Santa Fe County has only 150,000 residents.
It is not a fairly straightforward criminal trial if the defendant is a multi-millionaire, like Alec Baldwin. Baldwin has very well paid and well known law firms attending to his various legal issues. That makes the case very different than one that's defended by the public defender's office (which is by far the more common situation).
If two high school students made a movie where someone got shot and died, I think it would get national attention as well. But they would be juveniles, which is a very different situation.
I think in this case, the SFC DA believes they need help in bringing the case to court, due to the over-papering and possibility of many motions being brought by the defense. It also means they anticipate no plea bargain.
You can't have a trial in the United States until both sides have presented each other with all the evidence. That can't even begin to happen
until there's an arrest.
We do not arrest and try people on the same day without them having recourse to a substantial amount of time to prepare a defense. They are given a defense attorney (paid by the state) if they can't afford one. That person has to be found, assigned to the case, and then both sides go through discovery and share ALL the evidence BEFORE trial.
What you're suggesting (just arrest and try them immediately, upon the word of prosecution and judge) is precisely the system that the US Constitution prohibits.
Check out the Fifth Amendment (in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution). It guarantees due process and provides specifically for Grand Juries (Federal Grand Juries). I think all 50 states have put the same language in their state constitutions - but not all states use Grand Juries for situations of this type. It's actually unusual (it's usually a petition for an arrest warrant). At any rate, if this does go to a (secret) Grand Jury, the judge assigned to the case has to accept their indictment, should they issue one.
I think it's generally believed that a GJ indictment is a stronger cause of action than an arrest affadavit proceeding. At any rate, the defendant still has the same rights to a defense, and the judge will see all of the material presented to the GJ.
IME.
