Is the grand jury system itself the problem?

[closeupready]

Between Ferguson and Garner, I don't understand how grand juries can be finding not enough evidence to warrant charges given what the general public has seen.

I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but there's nothing in the Constitution requiring a grand jury, is there?

[PoliticAverse]

1. Blame the prosecutor(s) for the failure(s). n/t

[closeupready]

2. But they almost ALWAYS get a GJ indictment when

they call forth a grand jury, because the evidence is typically overwhelming.

There's a problem here, and it ain't the prosecutors.

[sir pball]

7. It is the prosecutors.

Given that they have essentially carte blanche to present whatever evidence and witnesses they choose, with noncross or rebuttal, (since it isn't a trial), the outcome is almost entirely up to them. Add a few due process protections and I'd be totally cool with GJs.

[herding cats]

11. ^^^ THIS!

They get what they try to get. Which is where the saying "you can indict a ham sandwich" came from. If they don't want an indictment, they won't get one.

[joshcryer]

9. It absolutely is the prosecutors.

The prosecutor gets to decide what they'll present to the grand jury, it's easy enough to present anything you want. At least in the case of Ferguson it went completely insane. Wilson did not undergo any cross examination whatsoever, all the flaws in his commentary were ignored. If it was a trial even the most minute flaw in testimony would be picked apart (it's one reason you're told never to stand to witness for yourself).

[Igel]

15. Cross examination is impossible.

It's when one lawyer questions a witness called by his opponent.

There's only one lawyer in the GJ. He can't cross examine a witness he called to the stand.

Pretty much every contradiction and inconsistency in every bit of testimony was ignored. We mostly notice just those that suit us and overlook those that we don't like. (Which is why in a real trial there would be a cross. In the GJ, the contradictions in testimony are allowed to stand.)

[joshcryer]

16. Can't they at least make note of the contradictions?

[morningfog]

3. Fifth Amendment

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is plenty wrong with the grand jury process. The most glaring and immediate problem is disparate treatment based on occupation.

[sir pball]

4. That only applies to Federal charges, states get their own say

I can't say I dislike the theory of even more juries of your peers, but the secret, not-very-due-process implementation leaves much to be desired indeed.

[morningfog]

5. All true.

Over have the states use grand juries in some way.

[sir pball]

8. Which I don't find an inherent problem

Just the way they're implemented. Allow a bit of due process and a GJ would be an awesome first line of defense, so to speak.

[Ykcutnek]

6. Corrupt prosecutors and ignorant peers. nt

[kelliekat44]

10. In the Brown case the prosecutors should be sent to jail. nt

[951-Riverside]

12. The system itself is the problem. Officers ramos and cicinelli got a real jury trial...

and got off scott-free even though they were caught on tape beating and strangling Kelly Thomas to death just like Deputy Ivory John Webb Jr was found not guilty by a real jury after he shot airman Elio Carrion 3 times in the back after telling him to get up even though he was prone on the ground.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. The USA is the only common law country that still uses grand juries.

Everywhere else (the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) they were abolished years ago and replaced with public prosecutors. And the only reason the USA retains grand juries is because they're in the Constitution.

[displacedtexan]

14. Prosecutors move up to District Attorney, Mayor, and even state/fed office.

And they Aren't successful unless they have the backing of law enforcement.

Truly heavy sigh.

[SoCalDem]

17. Just a clever, nifty , little tool that police departments can use

to "prosecute" in secret, their own...in a friendly environment that they can control.. No more messy public trials ..with people watching and reporters,.. Just a nice chat with friends about how hard it is being a cop..

and in the end no indictment..

case closed..

I wonder if ALEC passed this gem of an idea around ...sounds like it to me..

[NuclearDem]

18. The problem is that the prosecutors responsible for prosecuting police crimes

are too often buddy-buddy with the cops who work with them on other cases.