You obviously don't understand what a grand jury is... they are in fact weighing the evidence and determining if there is enough evidence to actually bring the case to trial. The public opinion does not determine if it goes to trial, which is what you sound to be recommending. What the media reports does not cover all the evidence, it covers the evidence that the media wishes to report on. The media is a very powerful tool to build public opinion and is not always impartial or complete.
Yes I quote Hurtado v California but I don't know what a grand jury is. Please do me a favor read this entire link as I have, then come back and tell me what I don't know about Grand Juries. https://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/workshops/0708/washburn.pdf
Even with Hurtado v CA, there is still the need for a preliminary hearing to determine if a crime has even taken place. Nice try, though.
Not a nice try, the bomb on the quoted 5th amendment. Yes, have the pre-hearing...everything would then be out in open. Or the State AG could bring the charges in Missouri. Can we have less of the you don't know what you are talking about and more about why you are afraid of an open trial?
And it's not really a bomb on the 5th. It simply clarifies that States have the right choose whether to use a pre or a gj without either being an infringement on due process. Either way, it doesn't mean lets jump to a public lynching.
Fair enough, but it's a bomb on the misunderstanding of the poster who thought it was required for an indictment. And who said anything about a public lynching? There is 100% going to be a trial, mark my words, but that trial will be held in a court of law. It might be a state criminal trial, a federal criminal trial, or a civil trial...but there will be a trial. Well I take back the 100%...they might settle the civil case.
If there is not enough evidence that a crime was committed, why should there be a public trial? To appease the public opinion? Why not just walk defendants through the streets and let the people decide if they want to stone them or not? And the grand jury is in fact made up of citizens.
No. Hurtado vs. California found that since Hurtado had been prosecuted by an "information" that his due process was not violated. It found that the fifth amendment cannot trump a states right to enact its own laws with regard to due process. At the time California's constitution required Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county." So the question is what is Missouri's law with regards to capital crimes? Missouri uses preliminary trials for lesser crimes and a Grand Jury for major crimes. Therefore, fifth amendment protections. Damn constitution.
So just to get this straight, you want the people from a neighborhood which exploded and tore itself apart, to step onto a public witness box and tell the truth without fear of retaliation? Are you daft? Seriously, justice is not served by putting witnesses in a position of fear of retaliation. It is much better keeping them anonymous when you are trying to get at the truth.
Well you might wanna take that up with the grand jury that happens to be going on right now, I suspect they've got a handle on the law
So what you are saying is is that officer Wilson is guaranteed either a preliminary hearing or a grand jury trial and that meets his fourteenth amendment right to due process? Now you don't want Officer Wilson to have a Grand Jury trial because it isn't open and transparent even though the Grand Jury protects the witnesses as well as the rights of the accused and is, if anything, skewed towatds the prosecution. You want to use a preliminary hearing, so that there a greater likelihood that witnesses will alter their testimony out of fear of retaliation and the decision is in the hands of one person instead of a panel? Sounds like what you want is a good old fashion lynching, not justice.
Im talking about the expense to Officer Wilson. Should this cost him 200k and a year of his life to appease your public opinion. I didnt know the justice system was supposed to quell the masses. You do realize that evidence and witnesses are supressed for various reasons in a public trial right? A public trial wont remove doubt, the pressure cooker would simply boil for a year and when the not guilty verdict came down the exact same thing would happen. You act as if reason and logic are factors amongst dumbasses who think looting and burning their town somehow changes anything.
From Speedy's link: The Brown family's lawyer responds Lawyers for the Brown family issued a statement Saturday saying that from the beginning the Ferguson Police Department has sought to “vilify the victim and put the shooter on a pedestal.” In that statement, remove 'Ferguson Police Department' and replace with 'Brown family' or 'protestors'. Switch 'victim' and 'shooter' around. Accurate, yes?
