Irish_Eyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 4,059
- Reaction score
- 1,660
I caught a brief part of a FOX commentary earlier that I thought was interesting. I had been wondering how long ago the GJ was empaneled, and hoped it was before Aug 9.
The guest commenter said they were empaneled in May, and their term expires Sept 10. Said they were asked to extend their service by a few weeks for this case. The commenter said since they are at the end of their term, they are an experienced GJ with dozens of cases under their belts, which he was personally pleased with. Also said that they strive to achieve a GJ that mirrors the community, and I think I heard him say there are at east 3 African Americans on the panel. In MO, the panel must have 9/12 concur for a true bill, which is apparently much higher than other states (he said most require about 50% of the panel). This commentor felt that this process was significantly better legally than one special prosecutor (referencing Angela Corey from the George Zimmerman case) making a unilateral decision to indict.
Discussion of the "ham sandwich" idiom about GJ's-- but then he gave an example of another case (can't remember where) where a police officer shot a suspect and was NOT indicted, as the officer was within protocol and had been seriously threatened.
He gave a lot of other details about what the GJ process entails, presentation of evidence and witnesses, etc. Maybe it's available as a video archive somewhere. (I think it was Shepherd Smith show on Fox-- I was doing about a dozen other things while listening from another room.) It was a lot of good info. For example, the guest commentor chastised people who criticized how "fast" the GJ receved this case. In fact, he said that a GJ has to officially have a case for the prosecutor to subpoena a lot of evidence-- so the assignment of the case, the numbering system, etc, HAS to come first.
Lots of interesting stuff Here. After more of the facts started coming out in this case then they started saying the prosecutor should recuse himself. I thought it was strange. Then I found out that if the prosecutor was removed a special prosecutor would be appointed and then the case wouldn't have to go to the grand jury. So I think it was a legal tactic, but it seems not to have worked.
Yes, they say you can indict a ham sandwich, lol. The grand jury just has to make sure that the prosecutor isn't abusing his power, and that there is a legitimate argument for why the government thinks a crime was committed, and why they think this or that particular individual is the one responsible.
I mentioned in an earlier post last night that I have a friend whose son was shot and killed by police a few years ago -and how in their case it wasn't even presented to the grand jury for something like 5 or 6 months. So that may be something that differs from state to state. The grand jury refused to indict. It was a weird case, and I think in that case they were wrong (and not just because he was my friend's son), but just goes to show it can happen.