Here you go:
Quote
Are you saying the prosecutor should've allowed statements like "shooting him in the back of the head" go to the grand jury with no clarificatio at all?
Yes, under the normal rules of a grand jury proceeding that is what the law requires the prosecutor to do. Namely, only present evidence that supports the indictment not evidence that makes the indictment less likely. The role of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence of the accused it is to simply determine if there is probable cause. What this prosecutor did was said fuck going to trial I am going to put a stop to this for my buddies in blue. I am going to hold a trial in the grand jury proceeding where I control the whole show to get the result I want for my buddies on the police force.
Are you saying the prosecutor should've allowed statements like "shooting him in the back of the head" go to the grand jury with no clarificatio at all?
Yes, under the normal rules of a grand jury proceeding that is what the law requires the prosecutor to do. Namely, only present evidence that supports the indictment not evidence that makes the indictment less likely. The role of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence of the accused it is to simply determine if there is probable cause. What this prosecutor did was said fuck going to trial I am going to put a stop to this for my buddies in blue. I am going to hold a trial in the grand jury proceeding where I control the whole show to get the result I want for my buddies on the police force.
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
I am trying to explain it from a legal point of view of what the law requires in terms of procedure and you don't want to understand that aspect of the case. Read the quote from Justice Scalia I posted focus on the part near the end where is says the accused has no right to have exculpatory evidence presented in a grand jury proceeding. Focus on the part where it says the accused has no right to testify. Focus on the part where is says the grand jury is not to enquire on the foundation of why the charges may be denied. Focus on the part where is says the grand jury is not to try the suspect’s defenses.
Every rule laid down by Justice Scalia himself in describing the role of a Grand Jury proceeding was not followed. The question you need to be asking is why were these rules not followed? It is the question everyone should be asking. If the facts are such a lay down for the police as many of you suggest why break all the rules to make sure the thing never goes to trial?
You're still not answering my question ie the example I gave(shooting in the back of the head). Better yet, why don't you single out something in particular, a single thing, and I'll really try and see where you're coming from because I still think the pros bent over backwards.
