THIS JUST IN on the Zimmerman case....

[KissMy]

You assume the shooting was in self defense. If it was in self defense that means Martin was trying to commit a crime against Zimmerman. So you assume Martin was attempting a crime agaisnt Zimmerman.

Martin was committing a crime against Zimmerman.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

905.16 Duties of grand jury.
The grand jury shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information or affidavit filed for the offense, and all other indictable offenses triable within the county that are presented to it by the state attorney or her or his designated assistant or otherwise come to its knowledge.

-- Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. ( Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws )

So, I think that means that since Zimmerman has NOT (yet) been held to answer, it is not necessary that it be a Grand Jury that brings the Felony charge(s) against him.

It means a grand jury is used unless a bill of information has already been filed.

But I never seem to be able to square with the US Constitution Fifth Amendment the bringing of felony charges without a presentment before a grand jury.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

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; * * * *

See Hurtado v. California (1884)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You assume the shooting was in self defense. If it was in self defense that means Martin was trying to commit a crime against Zimmerman. So you assume Martin was attempting a crime agaisnt Zimmerman.

Martin was committing a crime against Zimmerman.

According to what court?

 

[Emma]

905.16 Duties of grand jury.
The grand jury shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information or affidavit filed for the offense, and all other indictable offenses triable within the county that are presented to it by the state attorney or her or his designated assistant or otherwise come to its knowledge.

-- Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. ( Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws )

So, I think that means that since Zimmerman has NOT (yet) been held to answer, it is not necessary that it be a Grand Jury that brings the Felony charge(s) against him.

But I never seem to be able to square with the US Constitution Fifth Amendment the bringing of felony charges without a presentment before a grand jury.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

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; * * * *

The Florida constitution and the rules for criminal procedure I linked above both say that a Grand Jury is required for capital offenses, but otherwise an information may be sworn. Does this mean he would have to waive his right prosecution by indictment, as it is in Federal rules? Reading the florida rules made me a bit cross-eyed, but that's what it seemed to be saying.

 

[California Girl]

You assume the shooting was in self defense. If it was in self defense that means Martin was trying to commit a crime against Zimmerman. So you assume Martin was attempting a crime agaisnt Zimmerman.

Martin was committing a crime against Zimmerman.

You don't know that. That's kind of the whole point.... none of us know exactly what happened. It is as wrong to accuse Martin of wrong doing as it is to insist Zimmerman is guilty.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

905.16 Duties of grand jury.
The grand jury shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information or affidavit filed for the offense, and all other indictable offenses triable within the county that are presented to it by the state attorney or her or his designated assistant or otherwise come to its knowledge.

-- Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. ( Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws )

So, I think that means that since Zimmerman has NOT (yet) been held to answer, it is not necessary that it be a Grand Jury that brings the Felony charge(s) against him.

But I never seem to be able to square with the US Constitution Fifth Amendment the bringing of felony charges without a presentment before a grand jury.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

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; * * * *

The Florida constitution and the rules for criminal procedure I linked above both say that a Grand Jury is required for capital offenses, but otherwise an information may be sworn. Does this mean he would have to waive his right prosecution by indictment, as it is in Federal rules? Reading the florida rules made me a bit cross-eyed, but that's what it seemed to be saying.

No.

It does mean he receives a pre-trial hearing, where a judge can decide there is insufficient evidence to support the charge.

 

[KissMy]

You assume the shooting was in self defense. If it was in self defense that means Martin was trying to commit a crime against Zimmerman. So you assume Martin was attempting a crime agaisnt Zimmerman.

Martin was committing a crime against Zimmerman.

According to what court?

According to 4 eye witnesses. If Martin were alive, he would be in jail.

 

[Ernie S.]

Re my earlier ham sandwich remark...

Can you actually indict a ham sandwich?
By Jim Phillips

"œStack of ham and bread facing multiple felony counts; mayonnaise may be implicated."

This is not a newspaper headline you're likely to read anytime soon. But if you do enough talking to lawyers, you'll probably hear at some point the supposed truism that a competent prosecutor can persuade any grand jury to "œindict a ham sandwich."


The phrase is typically invoked to suggest that getting a grand jury to return an indictment doesn't take much of an effort, and that therefore, merely because a person is indicted doesn't necessarily imply guilt.

After Athens County Democratic Party Chair Susan Gwinn was recently indicted on two bribery counts, for example "“ coming on top of previous low-level felony indictments for alleged campaign-finance related offenses "“ Democratic Athens City Council member Nancy Bain employed the cliché in Gwinn's defense, telling The Athens NEWS, "I guess you can indict a ham sandwich."

So where does this cliché come from? And is it accurate?

Historically, it is believed to originate with Solomon Wachtler, a former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals. In 1985, in an interview with the New York Daily News, Wachtler suggested that district attorneys, at least in his state, had so much influence over grand juries that "by and large," they could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich."

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You assume the shooting was in self defense. If it was in self defense that means Martin was trying to commit a crime against Zimmerman. So you assume Martin was attempting a crime agaisnt Zimmerman.

Martin was committing a crime against Zimmerman.

You don't know that. That's kind of the whole point.... none of us know exactly what happened. It is as wrong to accuse Martin of wrong doing as it is to insist Zimmerman is guilty.

You admit none of us know what happened yet are opposed to the matter being placed before a trial jury.

interesting

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Martin was committing a crime against Zimmerman.

According to what court?

According to 4 eye witnesses. If Martin were alive, he would be in jail.

Are you having trouble reading or do you just not understand what a "court" is?

 

[KissMy]

According to what court?

According to 4 eye witnesses. If Martin were alive, he would be in jail.

Are you having trouble reading or do you just not understand what a "court" is?

There is no need for court. Zimmerman was justified by law to shoot Martin. Florida law says they cannot prosecute or sue Zimmerman because he was justified. Martin is dead, so there is no need for a trial or punishment for a dead person.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

According to 4 eye witnesses. If Martin were alive, he would be in jail.

Are you having trouble reading or do you just not understand what a "court" is?

There is no need for court. Zimmerman was justified by law to shoot Martin. Florida law says they cannot prosecute or sue Zimmerman because he was justified. Martin is dead, so there is no need for a trial or punishment for a dead person.

Who says he was justified?

 

[dilloduck]

According to 4 eye witnesses. If Martin were alive, he would be in jail.

Are you having trouble reading or do you just not understand what a "court" is?

There is no need for court. Zimmerman was justified by law to shoot Martin. Florida law says they cannot prosecute or sue Zimmerman because he was justified. Martin is dead, so there is no need for a trial or punishment for a dead person.

We are ignoring the law in this case because people don't think it's fair. This case is going to be settled by emotions and speculation. We don't need no stinking laws.

 

[Liability]

905.16 Duties of grand jury.
The grand jury shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information or affidavit filed for the offense, and all other indictable offenses triable within the county that are presented to it by the state attorney or her or his designated assistant or otherwise come to its knowledge.

-- Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. ( Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws )

So, I think that means that since Zimmerman has NOT (yet) been held to answer, it is not necessary that it be a Grand Jury that brings the Felony charge(s) against him.

But I never seem to be able to square with the US Constitution Fifth Amendment the bringing of felony charges without a presentment before a grand jury.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

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; * * * *

The Florida constitution and the rules for criminal procedure I linked above both say that a Grand Jury is required for capital offenses, but otherwise an information may be sworn. Does this mean he would have to waive his right prosecution by indictment, as it is in Federal rules? Reading the florida rules made me a bit cross-eyed, but that's what it seemed to be saying.

I know there is case law by which the Courts have indeed "incorporated" (via the due process clause) the rights under the fifth amendment.


I have not studied the issue well enough to find out why the "right" to a grand jury presentment would apply only for Capital cases but not for "other infamous crimes."

I also know that one has a right in NY State to WAIVE a "right" of even Constitutional proportions under some circumstances. Thus, a defendant can waive a jury trial. A criminal defendant can also WAIVE the right to have his case (in NY) presented before a Grand Jury and allow himself to be prosecuted by way of a superior court "information." But those are OPTIONS which a defendant MAY elect.

I'm still not quite seeing why a STATE can bypass the Fifth Amendment and present a felony charge (for an infamous crime) against a criminal defendant in Court without the necessity of going before a Grand Jury.

 

[KissMy]

Are you having trouble reading or do you just not understand what a "court" is?

There is no need for court. Zimmerman was justified by law to shoot Martin. Florida law says they cannot prosecute or sue Zimmerman because he was justified. Martin is dead, so there is no need for a trial or punishment for a dead person.

Who says he was justified?

The witnesses & the prosecutors!

2011 Florida Statutes:

776.012 - A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

776.032 - Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The witnesses & the prosecutors!

2011 Florida Statutes:

776.012 - A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

776.032 - Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

And who has determined that the above applies to Zimmerman?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is no need for court. Zimmerman was justified by law to shoot Martin. Florida law says they cannot prosecute or sue Zimmerman because he was justified. Martin is dead, so there is no need for a trial or punishment for a dead person.

Who says he was justified?

The witnesses

Great. Let's see their sworn testimony.

& the prosecutors!

The prosecutor in charge of the case hasn't decided whether or not to file charges.

 

[dilloduck]

The witnesses & the prosecutors!

2011 Florida Statutes:

776.012 - A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

776.032 - Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

And who has determined that the above applies to Zimmerman?

no one-----the legal minds are trying to figure it out.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So I ought to be able to kill anyone I like then, as long as self defense would have had the same outcome. Certainly the state has no right to question a homicide I commit - if self defense would have had the same outcome - and nor does a jury of my peers - right?

Whatever.

I really can't be arsed to respond to stupid.

You said it, not me.

not evidence to indict someone. Self defense would have the same outcome.

And then you made the rest up dumb ass.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The witnesses

Great. Let's see their sworn testimony.

& the prosecutors!

The prosecutor in charge of the case hasn't decided whether or not to file charges.

you would think if this was the case, they would close the case down and say sorry there is nothing to see anymore.

why?