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.
The gathering of evidence, eye witness statements, determining the path of strategy, scheduling according to availability of judges, and allowing the defense ample time to put a defense together, all require time. It's not unusual or uncommon for a D.A. to be working on several cases at the same time, and likewise for defense lawyers. In addition, you have jury selection in some cases, venue, and scheduling experts that may have equally busy schedules. The process just takes time, and in some cases, a year or longer. Also, both sides may spend considerable time on a possible plea bargain deal, where several offers may be made over weeks or months.Whether or not to use a Grand Jury or a jury of peers for any given alleged crime?
What's considered too long vs. a rush to judgement?
How does one determine that?
Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.The gathering of evidence, eye witness statements, determining the path of strategy, scheduling according to availability of judges, and allowing the defense ample time to put a defense together, all require time. It's not unusual or uncommon for a D.A. to be working on several cases at the same time, and likewise for defense lawyers. In addition, you have jury selection in some cases, venue, and scheduling experts that may have equally busy schedules. The process just takes time, and in some cases, a year or longer. Also, both sides may spend considerable time on a possible plea bargain deal, where several offers may be made over weeks or months.Whether or not to use a Grand Jury or a jury of peers for any given alleged crime?
What's considered too long vs. a rush to judgement?
How does one determine that?
I say it takes time to do it right.Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.The gathering of evidence, eye witness statements, determining the path of strategy, scheduling according to availability of judges, and allowing the defense ample time to put a defense together, all require time. It's not unusual or uncommon for a D.A. to be working on several cases at the same time, and likewise for defense lawyers. In addition, you have jury selection in some cases, venue, and scheduling experts that may have equally busy schedules. The process just takes time, and in some cases, a year or longer. Also, both sides may spend considerable time on a possible plea bargain deal, where several offers may be made over weeks or months.Whether or not to use a Grand Jury or a jury of peers for any given alleged crime?
What's considered too long vs. a rush to judgement?
How does one determine that?
I was just referring to the DA getting the pertinent facts/information/whatever to take the case to a Grand Jury or jury.
What say you?
How much time?I say it takes time to do it right.Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.The gathering of evidence, eye witness statements, determining the path of strategy, scheduling according to availability of judges, and allowing the defense ample time to put a defense together, all require time. It's not unusual or uncommon for a D.A. to be working on several cases at the same time, and likewise for defense lawyers. In addition, you have jury selection in some cases, venue, and scheduling experts that may have equally busy schedules. The process just takes time, and in some cases, a year or longer. Also, both sides may spend considerable time on a possible plea bargain deal, where several offers may be made over weeks or months.Whether or not to use a Grand Jury or a jury of peers for any given alleged crime?
What's considered too long vs. a rush to judgement?
How does one determine that?
I was just referring to the DA getting the pertinent facts/information/whatever to take the case to a Grand Jury or jury.
What say you?
Except when those being charged are policemen. Then it's the opposite, they almost never get a conviction, because of the relationship of the two. Correct?How long should it take? It really depends upon the evidence.
The main benefit of a "grand jury" is that it is held in secret and almost always results in an indictment/charges. Prosecutors love grand juries because there’s no one on the "other side" to contest the prosecutor’s evidence. As a result, grand juries almost always return an indictment. That being said, a prosecutor is required to reveal any exculpatory evidence during a grand jury. Still, it's a rubberstamp in 90% of cases.
A preliminary hearing is far more transparent and public. The Prosecution is required to convince a judge in a public preliminary hearing that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction. This high burden is not present at a grand jury proceeding, where the prosecutor only has to prove that there's "probable cause" that a crime occurred and the target of the proceeding committed it. Also, during a preliminary hearing, the defendant can see and cross-examine prosecution witnesses, which gives them a good preview into the prosecution's case.
Use common sense. As much time as it takes to do it right.How much time?I say it takes time to do it right.Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.The gathering of evidence, eye witness statements, determining the path of strategy, scheduling according to availability of judges, and allowing the defense ample time to put a defense together, all require time. It's not unusual or uncommon for a D.A. to be working on several cases at the same time, and likewise for defense lawyers. In addition, you have jury selection in some cases, venue, and scheduling experts that may have equally busy schedules. The process just takes time, and in some cases, a year or longer. Also, both sides may spend considerable time on a possible plea bargain deal, where several offers may be made over weeks or months.Whether or not to use a Grand Jury or a jury of peers for any given alleged crime?
What's considered too long vs. a rush to judgement?
How does one determine that?
I was just referring to the DA getting the pertinent facts/information/whatever to take the case to a Grand Jury or jury.
What say you?
Thank you for not participating.Use common sense. As much time as it takes to do it right.How much time?I say it takes time to do it right.Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.The gathering of evidence, eye witness statements, determining the path of strategy, scheduling according to availability of judges, and allowing the defense ample time to put a defense together, all require time. It's not unusual or uncommon for a D.A. to be working on several cases at the same time, and likewise for defense lawyers. In addition, you have jury selection in some cases, venue, and scheduling experts that may have equally busy schedules. The process just takes time, and in some cases, a year or longer. Also, both sides may spend considerable time on a possible plea bargain deal, where several offers may be made over weeks or months.Whether or not to use a Grand Jury or a jury of peers for any given alleged crime?
What's considered too long vs. a rush to judgement?
How does one determine that?
I was just referring to the DA getting the pertinent facts/information/whatever to take the case to a Grand Jury or jury.
What say you?
Except when those being charged are policemen. Then it's the opposite, they almost never get a conviction, because of the relationship of the two. Correct?How long should it take? It really depends upon the evidence.
The main benefit of a "grand jury" is that it is held in secret and almost always results in an indictment/charges. Prosecutors love grand juries because there’s no one on the "other side" to contest the prosecutor’s evidence. As a result, grand juries almost always return an indictment. That being said, a prosecutor is required to reveal any exculpatory evidence during a grand jury. Still, it's a rubberstamp in 90% of cases.
A preliminary hearing is far more transparent and public. The Prosecution is required to convince a judge in a public preliminary hearing that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction. This high burden is not present at a grand jury proceeding, where the prosecutor only has to prove that there's "probable cause" that a crime occurred and the target of the proceeding committed it. Also, during a preliminary hearing, the defendant can see and cross-examine prosecution witnesses, which gives them a good preview into the prosecution's case.
Based on your own statements...does that sound like justice to you?True.
It is very hard to get an indictment against a Police Officer unless there is strong visual evidence (like with Rodney King etc...).
Even if they are successful with an indictment, once a case goes to trial, it is very hard to get a conviction against police officers..
Based on your own statements...does that sound like justice to you?True.
It is very hard to get an indictment against a Police Officer unless there is strong visual evidence (like with Rodney King etc...).
Even if they are successful with an indictment, once a case goes to trial, it is very hard to get a conviction against police officers..
Does the Prosecutor have to bring this to a grand jury???
the prosecutor chose to NOT go with a grand jury and decided to CHARGE these men without a Grand Jury.
Prosecutors only use a grand jury when they don't believe they have enough evidence but will let the grand jury decide on whether to prosecute or not, rather, whether to "charge" a perp or not....or if it is a contentious case, this usually goes before a grand jury to decide if there should be "charges".
And SINCE charges were ALREADY BROUGHT, there should be NO grand jury and this goes to trial, a Jury Trial, is my understanding of the process....???