Have Grand Juries been subverted into tools of the state?

[j-mac]

The former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals (that state’s highest court) famously remarked in recent years that because prosecutors —agents of the executive branch—control what information a grand jury hears, any grand jury today would, if requested, “indict a ham sandwich.” While this is a useful exaggeration—the Supreme Court has held that federal grand juries need not adhere to trial rules of evidence, or be told of evidence exculpating the defendant—few prosecutors, fortunately, are interested in indicting ham sandwiches! Rather, the greatest advantage grand juries now provide (at least in federal courts, which are not as overburdened as state courts) is allowing the prosecutor to use the grand jury as a pre-trial “focus group,” learning which evidence or witnesses are especially convincing, or unconvincing. Interactive Constitution: Grand Juries and the Fifth Amendment | Constitution Center

There has been much made by the progressive liberals in here about how Trump has been indicted for multiple crimes, and that alone should be enough for Conservatives to drop him like a hot potato...

It is important to know that in a GJ it is only the State that can give the story, or evidence. No exculpatory evidence is presented to the GJ. Nor, is the defendant, if allowed to speak in a GJ, allowed to have his attorney present.

This is a system that was originally conceived to protect citizens against exactly what we are seeing being used against a candidate for POTUS right now, and with such a one sided system, who would have a chance other than indictment....?

Now, we know that indictments are not convictions, and Trump will have his day in court. But, from the arguments in here, and on the MSM that I hear, you would think he already HAS been convicted. Progressives always think that the charge is all one needs to mercilessly, and viciously attack their opponents. This is a Stalinist tactic. But today's progressives don't give a shit about that, they are communists, and some, the honest ones, will tell you so....

IMHO, we need a protection in the GJ process. I believe that prosecutors should be mandated to also provide GJ's with exculpatory evidence that would give our fellow citizens serving, the more full picture of what's going on here. Further if prosecutors play games with that should be disbarred....

 

[JoeB131]

There has been much made by the progressive liberals in here about how Trump has been indicted for multiple crimes, and that alone should be enough for Conservatives to drop him like a hot potato...

It is important to know that in a GJ it is only the State that can give the story, or evidence. No exculpatory evidence is presented to the GJ. Nor, is the defendant, if allowed to speak in a GJ, allowed to have his attorney present.

This is a system that was originally conceived to protect citizens against exactly what we are seeing being used against a candidate for POTUS right now, and with such a one sided system, who would have a chance other than indictment....?

Now, we know that indictments are not convictions, and Trump will have his day in court. But, from the arguments in here, and on the MSM that I hear, you would think he already HAS been convicted. Progressives always think that the charge is all one needs to mercilessly, and viciously attack their opponents. This is a Stalinist tactic. But today's progressives don't give a shit about that, they are communists, and some, the honest ones, will tell you so....

IMHO, we need a protection in the GJ process. I believe that prosecutors should be mandated to also provide GJ's with exculpatory evidence that would give our fellow citizens serving, the more full picture of what's going on here. Further if prosecutors play games with that should be disbarred....

Here's the reality. 95% of grand jury indictments result in guilty pleas or convictions. The Grand juries usually get it right.

If Trump were innocent, he wouldn't be trying to run out the clock until after the election when he could pardon himself.

 

[j-mac]

Here's the reality. 95% of grand jury indictments result in guilty pleas or convictions. The Grand juries usually get it right.

If Trump were innocent, he wouldn't be trying to run out the clock until after the election when he could pardon himself.

So, here JoeB obviously thinks that anyone indicted is automatically guilty....And the standard for him is "usually"...... LOL....What a joke...

 

[Oddball]

There has been much made by the progressive liberals in here about how Trump has been indicted for multiple crimes, and that alone should be enough for Conservatives to drop him like a hot potato...

It is important to know that in a GJ it is only the State that can give the story, or evidence. No exculpatory evidence is presented to the GJ. Nor, is the defendant, if allowed to speak in a GJ, allowed to have his attorney present.

This is a system that was originally conceived to protect citizens against exactly what we are seeing being used against a candidate for POTUS right now, and with such a one sided system, who would have a chance other than indictment....?

Now, we know that indictments are not convictions, and Trump will have his day in court. But, from the arguments in here, and on the MSM that I hear, you would think he already HAS been convicted. Progressives always think that the charge is all one needs to mercilessly, and viciously attack their opponents. This is a Stalinist tactic. But today's progressives don't give a shit about that, they are communists, and some, the honest ones, will tell you so....

IMHO, we need a protection in the GJ process. I believe that prosecutors should be mandated to also provide GJ's with exculpatory evidence that would give our fellow citizens serving, the more full picture of what's going on here. Further if prosecutors play games with that should be disbarred....

You can indict a ham sammich...

 

[j-mac]

You can indict a ham sammich...

Yes, so why have them…? Just let the State go after whoever they want, with impunity…That is if GJ’s are such rubber stamps.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

There has been much made by the progressive liberals in here about how Trump has been indicted for multiple crimes, and that alone should be enough for Conservatives to drop him like a hot potato...

It is important to know that in a GJ it is only the State that can give the story, or evidence. No exculpatory evidence is presented to the GJ. Nor, is the defendant, if allowed to speak in a GJ, allowed to have his attorney present.

This is a system that was originally conceived to protect citizens against exactly what we are seeing being used against a candidate for POTUS right now, and with such a one sided system, who would have a chance other than indictment....?

Now, we know that indictments are not convictions, and Trump will have his day in court. But, from the arguments in here, and on the MSM that I hear, you would think he already HAS been convicted. Progressives always think that the charge is all one needs to mercilessly, and viciously attack their opponents. This is a Stalinist tactic. But today's progressives don't give a shit about that, they are communists, and some, the honest ones, will tell you so....

IMHO, we need a protection in the GJ process. I believe that prosecutors should be mandated to also provide GJ's with exculpatory evidence that would give our fellow citizens serving, the more full picture of what's going on here. Further if prosecutors play games with that should be disbarred....

Yes
The Democrat Party is using/abusing the Grand Jury laws as their political weapon.
All that a corrupt district attorney has to do is make sure that the Grand Jury is full of Democrat Voters to get an indictment of Trump.

 

[Crepitus]

Have Grand Juries been subverted into tools of the state?​

No. You are just butt hurt because your guy is a criminal.

 

[Crepitus]

You can indict a ham sammich...

And 95 times out of 100 that sandwich will go to prison.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Here's the reality. 95% of grand jury indictments result in guilty pleas or convictions. The Grand juries usually get it right.

If Trump were innocent, he wouldn't be trying to run out the clock until after the election when he could pardon himself.

god i hope your most precious loved one is snared up innocently in something and gets 30....but a garage full of carbon monoxide reduces it you mother fucking bastard

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

And 95 times out of 100 that sandwich will go to prison.

i pray on this sunday that your most precious loved one is snared in something innocently and goes away for 30, but reduces it by 30 yrs with a garage full of carbon monoxide you mother fucking tatted up bastard

 

[Crepitus]

i pray on this sunday that your most precious loved one is snared in something innocently and goes away for 30, but reduces it by 30 yrs with a garage full of carbon monoxide you mother fucking tatted up bastard

WTF is wrong with you, saying shit like that?

tRumpism damages brains. Who knew dementia was catching?

 

[Orangecat]

You can indict a ham sammich...

Lulz:

You stated that a ham sandwich could be indicted. I just want you to point out where this happened.

 

[whitehall]

Most District Attorneys in the past knew that you can get an indictment on almost any defendant but they have been honest and relatively trustworthy about it. Not so much in a Banana Republic where the intent is to eliminate political enemies. It boils down to the media. If there is no outrage about frivolous indictments and the media becomes the willing propaganda agent for a Banana Republic administration, anything is possible.

 

[otto105]

Most District Attorneys in the past knew that you can get an indictment on almost any defendant but they have been honest and relatively trustworthy about it. Not so much in a Banana Republic where the intent is to eliminate political enemies. It boils down to the media. If there is no outrage about frivolous indictments and the media becomes the willing propaganda agent for a Banana Republic administration, anything is possible.

The grand juries voted for the indictments based on the evidence presented to them.

In a banana republic a leader (like the former fuckup) decides on the charges, And who has said they're about retribution.

 

[okfine]

There has been much made by the progressive liberals in here about how Trump has been indicted for multiple crimes, and that alone should be enough for Conservatives to drop him like a hot potato...

It is important to know that in a GJ it is only the State that can give the story, or evidence. No exculpatory evidence is presented to the GJ. Nor, is the defendant, if allowed to speak in a GJ, allowed to have his attorney present.

This is a system that was originally conceived to protect citizens against exactly what we are seeing being used against a candidate for POTUS right now, and with such a one sided system, who would have a chance other than indictment....?

Now, we know that indictments are not convictions, and Trump will have his day in court. But, from the arguments in here, and on the MSM that I hear, you would think he already HAS been convicted. Progressives always think that the charge is all one needs to mercilessly, and viciously attack their opponents. This is a Stalinist tactic. But today's progressives don't give a shit about that, they are communists, and some, the honest ones, will tell you so....

IMHO, we need a protection in the GJ process. I believe that prosecutors should be mandated to also provide GJ's with exculpatory evidence that would give our fellow citizens serving, the more full picture of what's going on here. Further if prosecutors play games with that should be disbarred....

Grand juries are enshrined in the 5th Amendment. If you think they are "one-sided" it's only because of your bias towards your dear leader, who in fact warranted indictment(s)

 

[okfine]

Here's the reality. 95% of grand jury indictments result in guilty pleas or convictions. The Grand juries usually get it right.

If Trump were innocent, he wouldn't be trying to run out the clock until after the election when he could pardon himself.

They found probable cause

 

[BluesLegend]

You can indict a ham sammich...

Dems are waging lawfare on their political opponents because they can't beat them fair and square at the polls.

 

[okfine]

Dems are waging lawfare on their political opponents because they can't beat them fair and square at the polls.

Bullshit. Your dear leader is fraud.

 

[Oddball]

Dems are waging lawfare on their political opponents because they can't beat them fair and square at the polls.

That and they want to terrify anyone else who gets too big for his britches, and thinks that he can just run for high office.

 

[Oddball]

Bullshit. Your dear leader is fraud.