Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

1. Yes, but generally in the other direction

Reply to Logical (Original post)

Mon Nov 24, 2014, 11:29 PM

Nov 2014

But, then, the DA here specifically said he wasn't "presenting his strongest case" (which is all he is required to do) but "presenting all the evidence" (which isn't really what a Grand Jury is for).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Grand Jury system is rigged. That is all you need to know. What a joke. nt [View all] Logical Nov 2014 OP

Yes, but generally in the other direction Recursion Nov 2014 #1

Yes, you are 100% correct.Non-Cops get indited. Cops do not. nt Logical Nov 2014 #2

it sounds like he carefully edited what the grand jury heard bettyellen Nov 2014 #4

We don't know, but his claim was that he had every witness who had given a statement testify Recursion Nov 2014 #5

really? I could have sworn he said they ruled out some testimony, hmmm. bettyellen Nov 2014 #9

That's a good question. I don't know whether he means "I didn't find them credible so they didn't Recursion Nov 2014 #11

I was sure he said early on that they did not present every witness. bettyellen Nov 2014 #12

Thanks; I had heard the opposite but that was a while ago Recursion Nov 2014 #13

they said they planned to show all the evidence, so I was shocked to hear that.... bettyellen Nov 2014 #14

I think it was more a case of, "We took a statement from Joe Smith, but we can't find Joe Smith... X_Digger Nov 2014 #21

Or people who don't want to give their real names and addresses to cops Recursion Nov 2014 #23

Could be, just as plausible. n/t X_Digger Nov 2014 #25

Did serve once and Wellstone ruled Nov 2014 #3

Sounds pretty one sided. nt Logical Nov 2014 #6

Depends on the state. A Texas GJ is a whole 'nother ball of wax. X_Digger Nov 2014 #8

Our whole system is rigged and it's been rigged for centuries. Kalidurga Nov 2014 #7

+1 gollygee Nov 2014 #10

In regular jury trials, Jenoch Nov 2014 #15

But the evidence presented is controlled by the State only. Rigged. nt Logical Nov 2014 #17

Who else should present evidence to a grand jury? Jenoch Nov 2014 #18

I would have no problem with Michael Brown's attorney presenting evidence. nt Logical Nov 2014 #19

The state still has to put on the trial davidn3600 Nov 2014 #24

Simple question, could the prosecutor have gotten an indictment if he wanted to? Nt Logical Nov 2014 #27

You do know that prosecutors do not like pissing off the police, correct? Logical Nov 2014 #20

It effectively was Nevernose Nov 2014 #22

Back in the 1800's the victim or his family would present to a grand jury Recursion Nov 2014 #26

St. Louis is not going to be able to live this down. logosoco Nov 2014 #16