kanzz
kanzz=kansas
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,272
- Reaction score
- 67
This reddit was posted by an attorney. It's a somewhat rambling piece, but I've pasted some excerpts below. You might or might not want to read the page before reading the highlights below(?). But I'd recommend skipping most of the questions and comments, as he does not address them anyway. There are a couple of good comments under Part 9 of 9, however.
Excerpts from:
Confused about the GJ?
An indictment is the other way of bringing charges. The prosecutor convenes a grand jury, and they receive a presentation of the facts from the prosecution only. (I'll get into this more later.) The prosecutor then gives the jury pre-selected criminal charges that the prosecutor thinks applies, and the jury votes whether to indict on those charges (a "true bill"), or they vote not to indict (a "no true bill"). Ultimately, however, the decision to actually indict still rests with the prosecutor. I cant emphasize this enough: ** The grand jury does not issue indictments! ** (The media, so sloppy on this distinction.)
Finally, and most importantly, as I mentioned above, the prosecution selects the charges that the grand jury will vote on. If, for instance, the prosecutor gives the GJ the option to vote for first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter but the GJ only votes to indict on manslaughter - then the prosecutor has a pretty clear indication that he wont succeed in obtaining a guilty verdict at trial on the more serious offenses. (Especially, where at trial the prosecution isn't just shooting at an empty net.)
Again, this last piece is super important to understanding the true bill in this case and what happened thereafter.
[Note: Theres also one strategic possibility that Ill confess I havent fully run down: Its possible that the DA knew they were running up on the statute of limitations (SOL) on the lesser charges. If they were concerned that they couldnt ever convict the Ramseys for murder, but they could possibly convict them on lesser charges, then they might start the charging process earlier so as to not let the SOL on the lesser charges run out. I need to confirm, but I dont think the SOL should have been an issue in 1998 (less than 2 years after the murder). They should have had at least a couple more years on the lesser included charges. That, plus the decision not to indict when the GJ true billed the lesser included charges, leads me to believe thats not what was motivating their decision to convene the GJ in 1998. But like I said, Ill check this point.]
With all this being said, if youre solidly RDI/BDI, this decision in 1998 to convene the GJ in the first place is where you should get mad at the DA, not at their decision not to indict. If the investigation was simply too premature to truly move forward productively in 1998, theres no reason why the DAs office couldnt have waited. (Yes, this would have pissed off the BPD & the media but its the DAs job not to capitulate to that pressure & to preserve the best quality, most strategic case possible.)
So we can safely assume that the prosecutor presented the GJ with at least 3 charges against the Ramseys that were more serious offenses than IV(a). These were likely murder or manslaughter (and possibly kidnapping) in their various degrees. The subsection (a) indicates to me that the GJ was probably also presented with 1 or more lesser degree offenses under the "Offenses Involving the Family Relations" Article, but the GJ didnt true bill those. The GJ was also possibly presented with some complicity and accessory charges numbered V & VI, but the GJ also didnt true bill those.
Keep in mind, the part about what specific charges I - III might have been are the opinion of one attorney. But they would have no doubt been more serious than IV(a).
HTH
Excerpts from:
Confused about the GJ?
An indictment is the other way of bringing charges. The prosecutor convenes a grand jury, and they receive a presentation of the facts from the prosecution only. (I'll get into this more later.) The prosecutor then gives the jury pre-selected criminal charges that the prosecutor thinks applies, and the jury votes whether to indict on those charges (a "true bill"), or they vote not to indict (a "no true bill"). Ultimately, however, the decision to actually indict still rests with the prosecutor. I cant emphasize this enough: ** The grand jury does not issue indictments! ** (The media, so sloppy on this distinction.)
Finally, and most importantly, as I mentioned above, the prosecution selects the charges that the grand jury will vote on. If, for instance, the prosecutor gives the GJ the option to vote for first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter but the GJ only votes to indict on manslaughter - then the prosecutor has a pretty clear indication that he wont succeed in obtaining a guilty verdict at trial on the more serious offenses. (Especially, where at trial the prosecution isn't just shooting at an empty net.)
Again, this last piece is super important to understanding the true bill in this case and what happened thereafter.
[Note: Theres also one strategic possibility that Ill confess I havent fully run down: Its possible that the DA knew they were running up on the statute of limitations (SOL) on the lesser charges. If they were concerned that they couldnt ever convict the Ramseys for murder, but they could possibly convict them on lesser charges, then they might start the charging process earlier so as to not let the SOL on the lesser charges run out. I need to confirm, but I dont think the SOL should have been an issue in 1998 (less than 2 years after the murder). They should have had at least a couple more years on the lesser included charges. That, plus the decision not to indict when the GJ true billed the lesser included charges, leads me to believe thats not what was motivating their decision to convene the GJ in 1998. But like I said, Ill check this point.]
With all this being said, if youre solidly RDI/BDI, this decision in 1998 to convene the GJ in the first place is where you should get mad at the DA, not at their decision not to indict. If the investigation was simply too premature to truly move forward productively in 1998, theres no reason why the DAs office couldnt have waited. (Yes, this would have pissed off the BPD & the media but its the DAs job not to capitulate to that pressure & to preserve the best quality, most strategic case possible.)
So we can safely assume that the prosecutor presented the GJ with at least 3 charges against the Ramseys that were more serious offenses than IV(a). These were likely murder or manslaughter (and possibly kidnapping) in their various degrees. The subsection (a) indicates to me that the GJ was probably also presented with 1 or more lesser degree offenses under the "Offenses Involving the Family Relations" Article, but the GJ didnt true bill those. The GJ was also possibly presented with some complicity and accessory charges numbered V & VI, but the GJ also didnt true bill those.
Keep in mind, the part about what specific charges I - III might have been are the opinion of one attorney. But they would have no doubt been more serious than IV(a).
HTH
