(December 12, 2014 at 9:42 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I expect that the theists here who pointed to the grand jury's refusal to charge Wilson in Ferguson to argue his innocence will now take up arguments as to why the grand jury system is flawed, in this case.
Forget Furgeson, what about Eric Garner who was put in an illegal chokehold and killed by the police? The autopsy report indicated that he died from being choked, also Indisputable video evidence, yet no grand jury indictment.
What other conclusion can you draw? There is no defense lawyer present at a grand jury only the prosecutor. So explain how only hearing one side of the case is NOT flawed, especially when it comes down to the prosecutor bringing a case against one of it's own.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-pro...-work.html
Quote:The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant -- usually reserved for serious felonies.
Quote: There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony.
Quote:Grand juries do not need a unanimous decision from all members to indict, but it does need a supermajority of 2/3 or 3/4 agreement for an indictment (depending on the jurisdiction). Even though a grand jury may not choose to indict, a prosecutor may still bring the defendant to trial if she thinks she has a strong enough case.
