For those saying, but thats just how the system works or but it went to a grand jury, and thats it, the below is quoted from thescienceoflaw (a public defender), posting on Reddit: My armchair opinion (speaking as public defender) is that the prosecutor made some questionable decisions on what evidence to present to the grand jury. The grand jury system is often criticized (by me and other defense attorneys) as the playground of the prosecutor and they get to basically limit and control all evidence that a grand jury considers in order to get whatever result they want. In this situation, it seems extremely questionable to have the actual officer testify at a Grand Jury hearing. It makes it personal for the grand jury, it makes it more about do we believe him or not instead of whether the legal standard is met or not, and it provides massive amounts of irrelevant evidence that is confusing and not relevant to the decisions that they need to make. Probable cause clearly exists with nothing more than the (1) number of shots fired, (2) the fact that the suspect was unarmed, (3) the dispute between medical examiners, (4) even a single witness that says something that doesnt match exactly with the officers testimony. I cannot count the number of times a judge has told me probable cause is an extremely low standard but your objection is noted for the record. In most cases, all it takes is a single witness that says something that MIGHT be a crime or a single discrepancy in testimony from someone claiming to be innocent. If just a single witness says his back was turned - THAT is probable cause for every defendant I have ever represented (which are, of course, the poor and people of color). If there is even a single thought of did he really NEED to pull his gun? Are we 100% sure? you have PC. The prosecutors decision to put all evidence before the grand jury seems extremely suspect to me. If he wanted to simply present enough to indict (which is his job in that situation) he would have only put on the evidence that raised questions about what happened (thereby showing that it is worth pursuing a full investigation for trial) - and let the actual TRIAL system work to resolve innocence or guilt. That is how the system is DESIGNED to work. I very much doubt he takes that approach when charging drug suspects, because it creates the exact issues of clouding the legal standards and confusing the grand jury into thinking they are deciding innocence or guilt when they are not.
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 06:24:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015