Don’t get on a grand jury

It was a big mistake for me to get on a grand jury.

The guy comes in with a speech saying how wonderful it is on a grand jury, and like a sap, I bought into it.
Big mistake!

It’s a kangaroo court on steroids! You’re a pawn in the hands of the state…
The other grand jurors, as far as I was concerned, had the mentality of a lynch mob, not objective citizens.

I tried to vote honestly, and I and one other lady were the only ones who ever voted NOT to indict once in a while. and we were looked at badly by the other Grand jurors and some of the prosecutors who came in and out of the room.

One juror and I almost got into a fight after he criticized my voting, and I demanded an apology, or I was out of there. The punk refused to apologize, so that was my last day on that disgraceful supposed justice forum.

But you can't just leave a Grand Jury once you’re on it, so the next day I asked the judge to get me out of there. I was ready to start complaining of harassment because of my voting, and I’m sure the judge didn’t want that.
He granted my request.

It’s a bad experience if you are interested in rights and justice.
They refer to the people as defendants even before they are indicted!
I asked about that, and for a while, they actually stopped, but it didn’t last long.
Anyway, don’t be cajoled by the court salesman to ever get on a grand jury unless you want to be a pawn of the state.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

What's the matter?

You don't like a contrived show of all the evidence presented from one side of the argument to make a decision on probable cause?

Evidence that won't necessarily even be able to be admitted in a trial?


The old adage exists for a reason.

"Prosecutors could indict a ham sandwich."

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: peaceinoutz

What's the matter?

You don't like a contrived show of all the evidence presented from one side of the argument to make a decision on probable cause?

Evidence that won't necessarily even be able to be admitted in a trial?


The old adage exists for a reason.

"Prosecutors could indict a ham sandwich."

Your statement alone is why I feel that the Grand Jury system needs to be abolished.

a reply to: JIMC5499

It's in the Constitution.

Some states chose to adopt it but yes, it has become a trivial thing currently due to lack of integrity in the justice system.

a reply to: JinMI


So that’s why, every lunchtime they brought in free ham sandwiches.

Without mayonnaise the cheap bastards.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

I didn't get free lunch.

Some of the cases were really flimsy. The serious crimes where the evidence was there, I voted to indict; only a few were like that.

They bring in a new prosecutor for each case.

The evidence they need to indict they present to a grand jury Is not the same as what they need to convict.

They don’t directly cajole you to vote no incident, but my experience is that the grand jurors themselves are game to be used. They were really gung-ho to indict. I tell you, it was like a lynch mob.
I expected the prosecutors to be so, but not the jurors.

I think the system you see on Perry Mason, a pre-trial trial with a judge, may be better.

a reply to: JinMI

They were socialists--
Im joking, of course...

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Welcome to the JustUs system.

Ive never served on a grand jury, but did serve as a juror 5-6 times.

One case went on for 3 months. I had to scold a fellow juror and threaten to hang the jury because she was refusing to vote according to the evidence. She was extremely liberal and didnt want a guy to go to jail after he chased a little guy into his home and room and stood over him shooting him in the head multiple times.

I finally persuaded her to vote along with the rest of us.

The little guy had lived but was confined to a wheelchair and had a protective helmet over his head due to part of his skull missing. He was crying tears of joy and relief as we walked out. He grabbed hold of my hand and thanked me as tears rolled down his face. He thought the guy was going to come and finish him off later. I made damn well sure he didn't.

Better to be harassed than have someone imprisoned unjustly. It's our duty to stand for the truth especially in times like this. Not easy I know but freedom has a price we all must bear or it will disappear.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: JinMI
Your statement alone is why I feel that the Grand Jury system needs to be abolished.

No. No. No.

We just need to back to the original. The way they were intended to work.

They were never, ever intended to be run by the persecutors. The local Persecutor could refer a case to the sitting grand jury for investigation, but that was all. They had no further influence beyond that. In fact, no government agent was even allowed inside a grand jury. The Grand Jury ran itself. That is how it is supposed to be.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: JinMI
Your statement alone is why I feel that the Grand Jury system needs to be abolished.

No. No. No.

We just need to back to the original. The way they were intended to work.

They were never, ever intended to be run by the persecutors. The local Persecutor could refer a case to the sitting grand jury for investigation, but that was all. They had no further influence beyond that. In fact, no government agent was even allowed inside a grand jury. The Grand Jury ran itself. That is how it is supposed to be.

The Grand Jury is responsible for debating and making their own decisions without the presence of a prosecutor. In fact, nobody but the jurors can be present during debate and voting and they're not supposed to discuss their deliberations outside the closed proceedings.

However, the whole point of a Grand Jury is to determine whether a prosecutor has enough evidence to show probable cause that a crime has been committed. The prosecutor has to be able to present evidence or there's nothing for the Grand Jury to even debate.

I’m not a bleeding-heart liberal; in fact, I believe in the death penalty for certain heinous crimes.

But I’ve always been weary of prosecutors. Once when on another jury adventure, a judge retained me for saying I didn’t trust the prosecutor!

He wanted me to be a jury for the defense since I was so anti-prosecutor, but I told him the system is corrupt, so no, thank you. He got really pissed and told me to stay, and I was retained as a punishment. I told him, look here, judge this is what I believe. He let me go my way.

Another lesson learned:
NEVER get a judge mad at you.

A judge is god in a courtroom.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: tanstaafl
The Grand Jury is responsible for debating and making their own decisions without the presence of a prosecutor. In fact, nobody but the jurors can be present during debate and voting and they're not supposed to discuss their deliberations outside the closed proceedings.

However, the whole point of a Grand Jury is to determine whether a prosecutor has enough evidence to show probable cause that a crime has been committed. The prosecutor has to be able to present evidence or there's nothing for the Grand Jury to even debate.

Ignorance much?

The Prosecutor was allowed to present a case... they were allowed to provide their evidence. But they had ZERO say in how the Grand Jury operated, who they decided to subpoena as witnesses, what evidence they decided to subpoena, etc etc. They were completely and totally independent.

Today Prosecutors run Grand Jury's like they own them. They have absolute control over every shred of evidence, every witness who does or does not get to speak to the Grand Jury, etc etc ad nauseum.

I had a similar experience in Grand Jury duty... (mob case)...

Because the case went on in dribs and drabs they "used" us to perform regular grand jury cases and there I learned the why of "Jury nullification."

Don't get me wrong, it didn't happen in the many cases I was part of over the month and a half I served... but I now know WHY such a thing ever existed and should exist.

The first lesson I learned was that the prosecutors believe the jury is convened for their pleasure and convenience. They honestly believe you (the grand jury) are a rubber stamp that must (of course) simply acquiesce to the prosecutor's wishes and indict everyone they present as a matter of course.

All objections and inquiries are met with the same arrogant and overbearing treatment as they can muster. As if no one but they are the "arbiters" of justice.

Many (if not all) judges are former prosecutors, I found, and seem to agree that the process is the domain of the prosecutorial agenda.

I will grant you a pair of stories... brace yourself....

A young man legally purchased a firearm and went to 'celebrate' his new 'toy.' He left it in the car, unloaded, in the box, in the glove compartment. While speaking of it to his friends, one decided to go out and 'look at it.' That person took the gun, removed from it's packaging, loaded a round, and shot it off - hitting the pavement next to the car door.

The police were summoned, and the gun owner was subsequently arrested, and had been in jail for about 2 days when the case was brought to us for adjudication. The prosecutor want to charge him with several grievances including reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge, and others... He had no priors of any type, but was young and "tatooed."

The key witness against him was a perpetual bar-fly who didn't work there (and had never been employed anywhere,) but spent upwards of 12 hours a day at the bar "hanging out with her friends"... her complaint was the trauma of hearing the gunshot...

I voted "no bill" and got a ration of crap from the prosecutor who seemed incredulous that I would point out that the attention-seeking barfly was 'eating up the sudden importance' she was blessed with. And didn't think it was a fruitful case considering the gun owner wasn't even around when the event happened... Sadly... the rest couldn't bring themselves to face the derision of the attorney and yielded to the demand we charge him.

Later

An outrageously intoxicated attorney, wallowing in whatever drunken stupor he was experiencing decided to drive his vehicle over the dunes of public beach, his car going airborne and slicing off the top of a car parked in a legal spot on the other side of the dune.... decapitating the driver in the presence of his 11 year old son and his a school friend of his in the backseat.

The prosecutor recommended a drunk driving charge recommending a probationary period, alcohol treatment, and temporary loss of driver's license for the attorney.... I openly questioned "why not vehicular manslaughter" or even a "recklessness" charge. I was met with steely silence and it went no further.

That's when most of the remaining grand jurors started to 'see things' as I did.

I am ashamed to say that prosecutor went on to a very prominent national-level political career... and were I to name her here, there would be a lot of trouble for me...

Hence my position that jury nullification is a necessary reality in the legal system.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

That's really sad. What do you think made many of the jurors so gung-ho to convict? Do you think prosecuters are just really good at finding people who have that mentality?

You would think, that ethically, prosecuters would choose jurors that would not be subject to mob rule and readiness to convict.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: peaceinoutz

That's really sad. What do you think made many of the jurors so gung-ho to convict? Do you think prosecuters are just really good at finding people who have that mentality?

Capitulation to authority.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: peaceinoutz

That's really sad. What do you think made many of the jurors so gung-ho to convict? Do you think prosecuters are just really good at finding people who have that mentality?

You would think, that ethically, prosecuters would choose jurors that would not be subject to mob rule and readiness to convict.

I don't know why they were like that. Maybe they screened them. They screened the wrong person in me.

A couple of the female prosecutors called me a problem to my face out loud!



Prosecutors are career driven, and to get ahead you get indictments and convictions. IMO, the essence of the system is wrong.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: peaceinoutz

That's really sad. What do you think made many of the jurors so gung-ho to convict? Do you think prosecuters are just really good at finding people who have that mentality?

You would think, that ethically, prosecuters would choose jurors that would not be subject to mob rule and readiness to convict.

Most grand jurors sit for many days (hearing many cases). The one I was on sat for four weeks. They always ask for volunteers before they start sullecting at random (I was one of the few that got sullected). But the point is who has four weeks to voluntarily give up to grand jury duty? You aren't getting a good cross section of the general public.