I've served on Grand Jury twice. We were allowed to ask questions of those giving testimony.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
No, didn't get to cross examine a witness even in regular court...that's what attornies are for. Prosecutor presenting evidence to find a person innocent...now that's a first...you are delusional! Proscution present evidence to support reasonable doubt...what LA LA land do you live in try to understand ....................there is a difference between PROSECUTOR and DEFENSE!!!! Prosecutor present evidence to prevent indictment...really? So wouldn't they be called PUBLIC DEFENDER then!
What about Defense presenting evidence to show the client might be guilty? What about Defense puting accused on witness stand when he knows they're guilty and will incremenate themselves?
Come on Cissy, even you know your statements are absurd......?
There is no defense in a grand jury. You are given evidence and testimony by the state that presumes guilt. If 12 out of 23 jurors are compelled to presume guilt, the defendant enters their trial with a presumption of guilt by 12 peers. That's the point. It's absurd to believe otherwise.
If the defense was allowed to hold an indictment hearing that showed evidence of innocence without the prosecutor present to counter the evidence, the outcome of grand juries would be quite different. It would actually be "innocent until proven guilty".
When you say allowed, you mean permitted. You could have not been permitted.
No we were always allowed/permitted to ask questions. The DA told us that in some cases, he would instruct the witness not to answer the question.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
No we were always allowed/permitted to ask questions. The DA told us that in some cases, he would instruct the witness not to answer the question.
Ok, 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. You can ask a question(with the prosecutors discretion), but the prosecutor can prevent them from answering. How do you discredit hearsay testimony if you can't challenge the witness?
Ok, 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. You can ask a question(with the prosecutors discretion), but the prosecutor can prevent them from answering. How do you discredit hearsay testimony if you can't challenge the witness?
Quoted Text
A grand jury is not an arm of the court but "is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. The "grand jury" may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
There is no defense in a grand jury. You are given evidence and testimony by the state that presumes guilt. If 12 out of 23 jurors are compelled to presume guilt, the defendant enters their trial with a presumption of guilt by 12 peers. That's the point. It's absurd to believe otherwise.
If the defense was allowed to hold an indictment hearing that showed evidence of innocence without the prosecutor present to counter the evidence, the outcome of grand juries would be quite different. It would actually be "innocent until proven guilty".
No we were presented with information to evaluate and determine if the information was sufficient to charge the individual. We were given specific instructions that we were NOT to determine guilt or innocence, but to evaluate the evidence presented to determine if it was sufficient to support bringing charges. THAT'S THE POINT AND IT'S ABSURD FOR YOU TO TRY AND MAKE IT DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS! Sorry it doesn't meet your low expectations of the legal system and the Police!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Make sure no one can defend themselves, but you J.O. Box!
Box wants guns out of the hands of anyone but the veterans and retired cops. He doesn't want "peasants" using guns, although he is the lowest form of smelly peasant himself. Hence his strict support of Cuomo, and Obama and the entire democrapic platform.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Make sure no one can defend themselves, but you J.O. Box!
Box wants guns out of the hands of anyone but the veterans and retired cops. He doesn't want "peasants" using guns, although he is the lowest form of smelly peasant himself. Hence his strict support of Cuomo, and Obama and the entire democrapic platform.
As a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment, I want good gun laws that are strictly enforced.
Graham wants to post his usual petty rant.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
No we were presented with information to evaluate and determine if the information was sufficient to charge the individual. We were given specific instructions that we were NOT to determine guilt or innocence, but to evaluate the evidence presented to determine if it was sufficient to support bringing charges. !
Bringing charges is a presumption of guilt, certainly not innocence. And with the rank amateurs that are charged with a grand jury investigations, and the restriction put on a grand jury...I'd rather go right to trial without a grand jury indictment with government worshiping yahoos like you and box sitting on it.
Man...Joebxr really gets his panties in a wad if you are critical of any system of government.
Bringing charges is a presumption of guilt, certainly not innocence. And with the rank amateurs that are charged with a grand jury investigations, and the restriction put on a grand jury...I'd rather go right to trial without a grand jury indictment with government worshiping yahoos like you and box sitting on it.
Man...Joebxr really gets his panties in a wad if you are critical of any system of government.
Nah, wrong again Cissy...I get annoyed when people like you think that your way of thnkiing is the only way that things should be and spew misinformation and then spin their words when others post reality that doesn't meet with your lowlife agenda!
I stated FACTS and you don't seem able to handle that. Maybe your thong is riding to deep in the crack!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
DOJ to Florida police: Hold Zimmerman’s gun until our investigation ends
Quoted Text
The FBI has ordered the Sanford, Florida Police Department not to return George Zimmerman’s gun to him while a federal civil case against him is still pending. The request is a clear indication that the U.S. Department of Justice is moving forward with its investigation as to whether Zimmerman violated the civil rights of teenager Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, the night of Martin’s death.
The Orlando Sentinel
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Obama pointed out that conservatives believe that the “Stand Your Ground” law played no role in the Zimmerman case, despite clear evidence that it did, but he echoed his attorney general Eric Holder in calling for a review of these laws. “If Trayvon Martin was of age and was armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?” “If the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we should examine those laws.”
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
