How Long Should It Take For The D.A. To Come To A Conclusion As To

[MarcATL]

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?

 

[Sonny Clark]

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?

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.

 

[MarcATL]

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?

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.

Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.

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?

 

[Sonny Clark]

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?

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.

Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.

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?

I say it takes time to do it right.

 

[Mr. H.]

I've been retained by a law firm as an expert witness in an upcoming trial. They don't seem to be in any kind of a hurry. My first meeting with the attorneys and their client isn't for two weeks.

The passing of time doesn't necessarily change facts, but it does allow for the gathering of facts.

 

[Agit8r]

Typically, one can never trust a local prosecutor to try local cops, because they are on the same side (not the public's side).

 

[Zander]

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.

 

[MarcATL]

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?

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.

Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.

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?

I say it takes time to do it right.

How much time?

 

[MarcATL]

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.

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?

 

[Sonny Clark]

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?

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.

Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.

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?

I say it takes time to do it right.

How much time?

Use common sense. As much time as it takes to do it right.

 

[MarcATL]

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?

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.

Sounds like you're describing the ENTIRE process to passing judgement.

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?

I say it takes time to do it right.

How much time?

Use common sense. As much time as it takes to do it right.

Thank you for not participating.

LOLing @ "Common Sense"

That's a good one.

 

[Zander]

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.

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?

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..

 

[Care4all]

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....???

 

[MarcATL]

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?

 

[Care4all]

the accused have a ''right'' to a speedy trial....the process should not take too long.... if the accused want a speedy trial....if they don't then the process can take up to a year before a trial....

 

[Zander]

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?

Yes it does sound like justice. We have to trust judges and juries' ability to weigh evidence and come to the correct verdict.

No justice system that relies on humans will ever be perfect.

 

[Zander]

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....???

There will be a preliminary hearing first.

 

[Disir]

Not 18 months, that's for sure.

I'm thinking six tops and that is pushing it.

Dante Servin?