oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,721
I believe the Grand Jury would only look at the charges DS is currently charged with to determine if there is enough evidence to likely get a conviction and if so bring an indictment.
It's my understanding charges of murder would need to be added by the prosecution before the Grand Jury would consider them.
My hubby was on a GJ last year. They do not weigh the evidence presented to them to determine whether anyone will be convicted.
That's not the duty of any GJ. They are there to either true bill or vote no bill on the cases presented to them. They are not the triers of fact that determines whether anyone will be convicted. That is only determined in a trial where the threshold is BARD.
They are determine if there is enough probable cause presented for each case to go forward.
If they feel the evidence presented didnt meet that threshold they will vote no bill .. often telling the prosecutor more evidence is needed. Which means the case can be reconsidered if more facts are presented at a later time to the GJ. My hubby's GJ duty lasted 6 months, and he was called back to hear other cases a couple of times.
Imo, it makes no sense they are going to present evidence on the offenses he has already been charged with. They can't just charge someone for almost a month without having probable cause met at the time of the arrest, and charge.
I suspect the prosecutor went to a judge to present probable cause of the charges he already has against him, and the judge agreed the probable cause threshold had been met. Imo, that is why he has had these offenses against him for sometime now. So I don't see the prosecutor presenting the same thing to the GJ.
Now of course that will be a part of the evidence that will be shown to them. It will help layout why they are asking for additional charges which I believe they will do.
They will include those offenses along with other facts in evidence they have amassed since then when asking for additional charges. Imo.
GJs are also allowed to indict on other charges the DA may not have asked them to do if the evidence presented to them shows other offenses should be added as well.
Imo, the reason the DA is going before the GJ is to present further evidence that additional charges exist based on the ongoing investigation.
It's in GJs where they usually have the lead investigator testify about what has been discovered in the ongoing investigation. Plus its then the ME presents their findings to the GJ.
This way the testimonies are confidential as it is in all GJs. It protects the integrity of the ongoing investigation from being known publically, and can't taint the possible jury pool of the accused if an indictment is rendered.
Imo, all we will learn he has been indicted on another offense or offenses, but we will not learn how the GJ came to their decision based on the evidence presented to them which is the right way to insure the defendant gets a fair trial if indicted.
Jmho
Last edited: