A proper decision by the grand jury but probably should not have even been brought to a grand jury.

Yes, Tony Stewart is a hot head and has anger issues, but as I've said, I doubt he would ever jeopardize his career by even trying to scare the kid.

Yes, I could understand where people would think Stewart did it intentionally based on his temper.  You'd think the accident investigators would have told the DA there's no cause for having a jury look at it, though apparently the accident investigators do not understand sprints, how they handle, nor the differences in dirt vs alsphalt and then the conditions of dirt before the start of any racing vs after heat races, consis, and in the feature.

Quoted from mikechristine1

A proper decision by the grand jury but probably should not have even been brought to a grand jury.

Bringing it to the Grand Jury eliminates any hint of impropriety, cover-up or
preferential treatment by the local DA...it was the smart and right move!

Agreed, it was the right thing to do -- having the Grand Jury look at all the information.
It was a sad situation all the way around.  Mr. Ward learned a hard lesson but unfortunately wasn't able to walk away from it.  Hopefully, Mr. Stewart will be able to move on with his life and career.

Quoted from joebxr

Bringing it to the Grand Jury eliminates any hint of impropriety, cover-up or
preferential treatment by the local DA...it was the smart and right move!

I guess you somewhat have a point there.   But clearly anyone investigating it could clearly document how these cars are different from what we drive on the street.  And it doesn't take expense of a grand jury to document that when someone, on pot or not, grabbing onto a wing of a sprint car jeopardizes their life especially with the rear wheels.  

But if I heard correctly, the guy said the grand jury records are not made public.  So where is the transparency.  

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Agreed, it was the right thing to do -- having the Grand Jury look at all the information.
It was a sad situation all the way around.  Mr. Ward learned a hard lesson but unfortunately wasn't able to walk away from it.  Hopefully, Mr. Stewart will be able to move on with his life and career.

Words from someone who know NOTHING about racing

ask DVOR; ask Metroplex; ask the DEMS;  oops, wrong thread!

Quoted from joebxr

Bringing it to the Grand Jury eliminates any hint of impropriety, cover-up or
preferential treatment by the local DA...it was the smart and right move!

Actually, there is another thought.  I know it's our system.   But members of a grand jury are not questioned as in a trial jury before being seated.  Talk about trying to eliminate impropriety!   Depending on the county, the grand jury could be seated for maybe six months.  My mother-in-law had grand jury in Schenectady twice, each time 6 months but  think she said it was one day  week.

When doing a grand jury, no attorney ever asks jurors about biases.  And if the grand jury is set up for several months, no one knows what cases might come up during that period.   So, impropriety?   Suppose that all 23 members of the grand jury were anti-redneck and felt that any auto racing was a bunch of hicks.  Hey, it's easy to think that a few out of 23 could have a bias about something that can come up in a grand jury, and of course that's where the decision of 12 out of 23 is beneficial.  

Talk about avoiding impropriety?   Grand jury proceedings are secret and remain secret.  What if 15 jurors were NASCAR fans but despised Tony Stewart, we will never know, no questioning is made like in a trial jury.

It's our system, just saying that the just because something is reviewed by a grand jury does not mean that impropriety then becomes non-existent.

Imagine, higher than a kite, driving a race.  Who would have thought ..

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Agreed, it was the right thing to do -- having the Grand Jury look at all the information.

"all the information"   ?????   Explain how YOU know that ALL the information was reviewed   Grand jury hears ONE SIDE only -- the side the prosecution presents.   What if the DA is a fan of Tony Stewart?   The public will NEVER know if the DA presented ALL the information or only the information that would favor Stewart.   The public will NEVER know whether the grand jury looked at ALL the information.

Define "all" the information.   Tell us what "all" the information was that the grand jury heard.  It is all done in secret.  Remember that there is no defense side.    

Yes, the grand jury heard from witnesses:   a number of race car drivers, racetrack employees and volunteers, two accident reconstruction experts, medical personnel, and a number of police officers.

Who were these race car drivers?   Were they sprint drivers who dislike that NASCAR drivers who make these special appearances which just make the promoters richer and perhaps prevent some drivers from earning points?  Race track employees?  Since you don't know anything about racing, you don't know that flaggers do NOT keep track of when they throw the caution flag.  Even in the video there is absolutely no way of knowing when the caution flag was thrown.  5 seconds after Ward's car spun?  15 seconds?   Since you don't know anything about racing, you won't know that all drivers do not all slow down at the same moment; some slow down quickly, some take longer, there can be a difference if the driver is on the straight-away vs around a turn and it is possible that one driver keep going at racing speed sometimes intentionally hoping they can move up a couple spots; much depends on how many in the tower are watching because if only one is watching and looking at the 1st and 2nd turn, they might not see the driver sneaking up and passing someone between the 3rd and 4th turn.  Believe me, we've seen that happen so many times, CD was known to do that in the days when he was one of the drivers so often "booed," and on the restart, people in the stands who perhaps know that he was 4 spots behind Louie, Jack, Lape, etc  all of a sudden he'd be in front of them.  

Who were the accident reconstruction people?  Were they just on the staff of the local PD and know nothing about these race cars?  

Those people who have a beef against Stewart will be able to keep saying he's a murderer, that he intentionally hit Ward, etc  nor any of us, Stewart fans or not,no one know whether ALL THE INFORMATION was REALLY presented or not, because what takes place in the grand jury is a secret.

Quoted from mikechristine1

Actually, there is another thought.  I know it's our system.   But members of a grand jury are not questioned as in a trial jury before being seated.  Talk about trying to eliminate impropriety!   Depending on the county, the grand jury could be seated for maybe six months.  My mother-in-law had grand jury in Schenectady twice, each time 6 months but  think she said it was one day  week.

When doing a grand jury, no attorney ever asks jurors about biases.  And if the grand jury is set up for several months, no one knows what cases might come up during that period.   So, impropriety?   Suppose that all 23 members of the grand jury were anti-redneck and felt that any auto racing was a bunch of hicks.  Hey, it's easy to think that a few out of 23 could have a bias about something that can come up in a grand jury, and of course that's where the decision of 12 out of 23 is beneficial.  

Talk about avoiding impropriety?   Grand jury proceedings are secret and remain secret.  What if 15 jurors were NASCAR fans but despised Tony Stewart, we will never know, no questioning is made like in a trial jury.

It's our system, just saying that the just because something is reviewed by a grand jury does not mean that impropriety then becomes non-existent.

Not sure that is entirely true.  Court needs to understand if a juror can serve without hardship.
To do that, people need to be questioned.  I can't speak from authority on this as I have not
served Grand Jury or asked anyone who has what is done.  My gut tells me there has to be
some vetting process, however. Not sure who does it or how.

Was stated the deceased was drug tested.   Marijuana can stay in your system for weeks.   He could of lit up days before and had the residue in him and not nesc. lit up on that day.   So what does this prove.   Wonder why Tony wasn't tested   Would'nt they of tested Tony if he hit someone in the public roadways?   Civil suit on the way.   If he loses that like OJ did will everyone feel Tony was innocent?

Quoted from MOONGLOW

Was stated the deceased was drug tested.   Marijuana can stay in your system for weeks.   He could of lit up days before and had the residue in him and not nesc. lit up on that day.   So what does this prove.   Wonder why Tony wasn't tested   Would'nt they of tested Tony if he hit someone in the public roadways?   Civil suit on the way.   If he loses that like OJ did will everyone feel Tony was innocent?

Tantillo said a toxicology report revealed that Ward was under the influence of marijuana
at the time of the accident — “enough to impair judgment.”

The grand jury heard testimony from about two dozen witnesses, including drivers, track employees and
two accident reconstruction experts. The grand jury reviewed two videos and photographs of the accident,
deliberating for less than an hour before coming to a decision.

Tantillo did not reveal the vote tally but said he believed the grand jury blamed Ward
for the accident.

“The grand jury was never tasked with the responsibility of anything other than to determine
whether there was enough evidence to file charges against Tony Stewart,” Tantillo said in a
news conference.
“They were not considering whether anybody else was at fault. However, I am sure from their
deliberations and discussions that the fact that Kevin Ward was observed running basically
down two-thirds of the track into a hot track in the middle of other cars that were still racing
played a big, big factor in their decision.”

Quoted from joebxr

Not sure that is entirely true.  Court needs to understand if a juror can serve without hardship.
To do that, people need to be questioned.  I can't speak from authority on this as I have not
served Grand Jury or asked anyone who has what is done.  My gut tells me there has to be
some vetting process, however. Not sure who does it or how.

Grand jurors are NEVER questioned by defense attorneys.   A grand jury is chosen on "day 1" and depending on county they can serve for six months (my mother-in-law served for six months in Schenectady though it was a while back.   On that "day 1" NO ONE knows what cases will come up in "month 4."   So the jury is seated and when month 4 comes along and let's say it something that might have racial issues with it, sorry, it's the seated grand jury that hears the evidence from the prosecution side.  No defense attorney nor prosecuting attorney comes in on the first day of that case that starts in month 4 to question the seated grand jury.   She couldn't remember what might have been done upon getting the summons and going to the court, i.e., if there were some broad questions, such as whether anyone had biases against police, minorities, etc.

But I can guarantee you that if the grand jury in Ontario was seated, in particular before the incident happened which is possible, their "day 1" maybe back in July, they were not questioned as to whether they are fans of auto racing.  In a trial jury both sides would question potential jurors who would sit for that trial only and those jurors would definitely be asked "do you follow NASCAR racing?" and probably "who is your favorite driver?" and perhaps what driver(s) do you despise, and probably trial jurors asked also if they follow dirt racing, anything open wheel, have they been to Canandaigua or any other tracks, etc.   Bet they would be asked it they own tee-shirts of either Stewart or Ward.  Bet they would even be asked if they are JZ fans too.

In that way, since grand jury is secret, we will never know if ALL THE QUESTIONS were asked and answered