Don’t get on a grand jury

a reply to: peaceinoutz

The foreman for the grand jury I was on kept making up evidence during our deliberations.

Me: How do they know he was there.

Foreman: You know they can track cellphones right?

Me: Maybe; but the Prosecutor didn't present that evidence.

Foreman: We just have to assume it.

Everyone Else: Makes sense to me, move to trial.

a reply to: tanstaafl

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.

Isn't that the definition of a "Kangaroo Court"?

originally posted by: Antisocialist
a reply to: tanstaafl

Isn't that the definition of a "Kangaroo Court"?

Yes... and your point?

For a point of reference here, a "Kangaroo Court" seems to be a term usually reserved for ad hoc, un-official, or of only 'presumptive' standing...

from the Wiki (shudders)

A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations (compare show trial).

A kangaroo court could also develop when the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication. A common example of this is when institutional disputants ("repeat players") have excessive and unfair structural advantages over individual disputants ("one-shot players").

But the gist of your comments in this regard are no less valid because of their "definition;" because in truth we are discussing the divergence from true justice, often finding ourselves in the "grand jury" experience, discovering "justice of prosecutorial convenience." This is especially true when those called to serve in such a process are 'sheepishly inclined to acquiescence.' (Mostly directed as precisely "how to feel and perceive" the facts of the case.)

I think this happens because prosecutors don't really "present" the case... they "argue it" to their advantage.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I actually agree with you, but, I think that there is a better chance of abolishing them than there is in trying to get them to function the way they are supposed to.

a reply to: Maxmars

You are right about the term “ kangaroo court.” I was going for the spirit of its meaning.

I respected the process to a point. And it was the reaction of the jurors, not necessarily the prosecutors, who I knew were careerists and not purveyors of justice, that surprised me.
Apparently, the prosecutors know this trend in society.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that bozo who insulted me weren’t a plant by the prosecution to get me off that jury…

Cause the fact is, I wasn’t about to sit in that room and be insulted by jack assess.

I have to conclude that, generally, most citizens' desire to acquiesce to authority is behind what I experienced.

I have served on a Grand Jury as well. Similar experience.

In my case, the prosecutor would come in, present his evidence, make sure everyone had doughnuts and coffee, act like he was our best friend in the whole world, tell us how appreciated we were and what a wonderful job we were doing, then leave. Of course we tended to vote for the guy who just brought doughnuts and coffee!

I do remember one case... now so old that I can speak about it. A car salesman was charged with attempted statutory rape. The mother and child came in crying about how he had made sexual advances toward the child in exchange for a better deal on a car. Oh, it was a heart-breaking story! That monster tried to lift her skirt and feel around her private area! He should be drawn and quartered for what he tried to do to the little girl!

The girl testified, not in tears but rather sounding like a recording of her mother, the same thing.

Then, in this case, the salesman had requested to make his statement to the Grand Jury. We allowed it (and the sentiment when we did so was "we want to see this monster"). He came in, well-dressed but with this distressed look on his face, and told us he had no idea why he was being accused of anything. He had shown a car to the mother, they went to his cubicle to talk money, and she couldn't afford it. She then left "to smoke a cigarette" leaving her daughter in the cubicle. Nothing happened, according to him... the mother was gone for about ten minutes and then came back in, asked again for a lower price, got mad when the salesman couldn't do it, and left.

I knew this was him being set up for daring to not sell her the car.

We voted... it was, if memory serves, 8-4 to indict (it was not required to be unanimous to indict, but it was a super-majority needed and one more yes would have been an indictment). We talked for a bit and the foreman asked for another vote. At this point, I stood up and said, "OK, let's vote. But I have something to say first." The others looked at me and I continued:

Me: "So far we have heard hundreds of cases, and we have all voted to indict almost every single one. I went along, because it looked like they were likely guilty and we all know they will have their chance to defend themselves in court regardless. We all want criminals off the street.

"But this case is different. This man will not be able to absolve himself of anything if we indict. All it will take is the indictment, and his life is ruined. Even if the case is thrown out, he will forever be known as the salesman who was indicted for statutory rape. He will likely lose his job, as no one wants to deal with a child molester. He will get his day in court and he will probably walk free, but he will not get his day in the court of public opinion.

"I am not going to be responsible for this man losing everything he has worked for. If he is innocent and we indict, he loses everything; if he is guilty and we don't indict, he will do it again. Next time, that Grand Jury will know that he has been accused before and he will probably go to trial then. Either way, he won't get away with hurting children. But if we indict, he will be punished for something he maybe didn't do."

Another juror: "How do we know he'll do it again?"

Me: "Because they always do. If you don't believe me, ask the DA when he gets back in what the recidivism rate for child molesters is."


We did not indict that case, but if I hadn't spoken up, the rest of the Grand jury would have. The moral of the story? Who was indicted falsely because a juror with integrity left? I promise you those with the "mob mentality" were not going to leave because someone challenged them. They had the chance and they stayed.

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

TheRedneck

This is one of the more thought provoking and terrifying threads that I've read on ATS in a while.

Thank you to those who have shared their experiences, and thank you for your critical thinking, integrity, morals, and ethics.

Prosecutors are just ordinary people with their own biases. Nothing makes them more special or objective than the average person.

In fact, due to promotions, they have a monetary interest in charging the most people. They should be assumed to NOT be objective and impartial.

One thing that attracted me to getting on a grand jury was something few know about.

In theory, a Grand Jury is an independent body and can actually do an independent investigation in some form of practically anything they deem fit outside of the prosecutor's agenda.

I interpreted that as it can tell the prosecutor to take a hike--- we're investigating this.

I forget all the details, but that’s interesting.

I didn’t believe it when I heard it, but it’s rarely exercised.

a reply to: Daughter2

Don't forget that usually the District Attorney or Head Prosecutor is an elected position.
Think about this one. If the DA would have realized that there was a good chance that the car salesman was innocent and didn't go to the Grand Jury, what would the chances be that in the next election his opponent would use the case to say that he is soft on child molestation? What are the odds that if the car salesman was indicted and found innocent at trial, that the indictment would have been used in a lawsuit against him and the dealership.

Anybody notice the trend of people coming forward and saying that they were sexually assaulted years ago. They are not coming forward for a criminal trial, they want a civil one for their lawsuit.

I posted on ATS about my former girlfriend being charged with DUI. She is a nurse. All of your hand sanitizers are alcohol based. Every time you use one you absorb alcohol through your skin. She was going home early because an elderly patient with dementia fought during a blood draw, sticking her with a contaminated needle. When she went in front of the DA she had an analysis of her blood that was taken 15 minutes before she was stopped. There was no Ethyl Alcohol in her blood. The DA refused to drop charges. She had to pay for a lawyer. During her hearing, there was a group from MADD in the Courtroom. When the Judge dropped the charges, you should have heard the things he was called by them. These days it is "Ready, Fire, Aim".

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: tanstaafl

I actually agree with you, but, I think that there is a better chance of abolishing them than there is in trying to get them to function the way they are supposed to.

But abolishing them simply won't work. They are integral, fundamental even, to the entire process.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
One thing that attracted me to getting on a grand jury was something few know about.

In theory, a Grand Jury is an independent body and can actually do an independent investigation in some form of practically anything they deem fit outside of the prosecutor's agenda.

I interpreted that as it can tell the prosecutor to take a hike--- we're investigating this.

I forget all the details, but that’s interesting.

I didn’t believe it when I heard it, but it’s rarely exercised.

It's rarely exercised because 99.99% don't know of the power of the independent grand jury, and of those that do, very few ever get on one, and if they do and attempt to exercise said power by educating the others, they never get on another one. Most people prefer to be lead around by the nose.

Same for a trial jury. They have the power to ignore any instructions by the judge, and vote their conscience, and even judge the law itself in spite of what the judge or anyone else says. Learn the history from the FIJA.

What authority decides if a defendant will get a regular jewelry or a grand jury type of trial?

Is it based on the type of crime The defendant is accused of?

originally posted by: carewemust
What authority decides if a defendant will get a regular jewelry or a grand jury type of trial?

Is it based on the type of crime The defendant is accused of?

The grand jury does not actually participate in the criminal trial itself. The grand jury is a mechanism used by federal prosecutors to help determine if there is sufficient evidence of a crime for an indictment. It does not determine overall guilt of the individual.