it was in the results.Show Democrats sent a Certificate of Ascertainment from Texas to Washington...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
it was in the results.Show Democrats sent a Certificate of Ascertainment from Texas to Washington...
the evidence is seen by everyone ahead of any actual trial proceeding, that disenfranchises any suspect named in the grand jury, and in high profile cases, that evidence is blasted out over the airwaves for every citizen to see and violates the ability to get a fair trial!! it infects the jury pool. See, grand jury hearings don't allow suspects to see the evidence or respond in kind! blatant abuse of the first amendment and constitutional rights.
it was in the results.
You do know that suspects have the same access to the evidence as everyone else, right?
look at all those electorates.Are you a liar, stupid or both?
Here's Texas' certificate of ascertainment. It's from Republicans, not Democrats...
Loading…
www.archives.gov
Do Prosecutors Have to Present Evidence That Helps the Defendant to a Grand Jury?
Prosecutors use grand juries to indict people, not to clear them of wrongdoing. But nevertheless, they sometimes have to present evidence suggesting innocence.www.nolo.com
In many states, when prosecutors initiate a case through the use of a grand jury, they must present evidence that's helpful to the accused. This duty doesn't require that they present every piece of favorable evidence—they generally only have to offer evidence that strongly points to innocence. But in other states and in federal court, prosecutors have no duty at all to present evidence helpful to the accused.
look at all those electorates.
they have evidence that they don't show, and, the defense must request and the prosecution can take their sweet ass time getting to them, violating a speedy trial.Has nothing to do with what I just said, nutcase.
different electorates for different folks. did you read it?What about them?
they have evidence that they don't show, and, the defense must request and the prosecution can take their sweet ass time getting to them, violating a speedy trial.
different electorates for different folks. did you read it?
"Attack on the US Capital" What a crock of shit.No such thing as a fake elector. That's for Congress to decide which slate to approve.
The OP is therefore more leftoid lawfare.
"Attack on the US Capital" What a crock of shit.
sure it is, it's evidence that isn't presented to the jurors implicating the suspect as guilty. the fk you demofks want real justice. You all suck at this.Which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. You appear too insane to maintain a conversation.
with no weapons, hilairous. intentional inciting a riot by the police.Yes, the attack was on the Capitol, not the capital.
yep, none of those AZ electorates did that.So? The matter at hand is a political party sending Washington a certificate of ascertainment for the losing candidate. In response to me saying that has never before happened, you point to Texas in 2016. But your own link shows Texas only sent one certificate and it was for the winning party?
Why do you post here? Do you really want others to see what a flaming nut you are?
sure it is, it's evidence that isn't presented to the jurors implicating the suspect as guilty. the fk you demofks want real justice. You all suck at this.
yep, none of those AZ electorates did that.
oh no, evidence is still given to the public and not to the defense.LOLOL
No, it isn't. Now you've switched from evidence given to the public ... with ... evidence that no one sees.
Again, why do you post here here? Do you want people to see what a nut you are?