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
 

branford

(4,462 posts)
24. That's not entirely true.
Wed Nov 26, 2014, 05:13 AM
Nov 2014

First, all grand juries are confidential. They are a common practice with a long history, recognized in our Constitution, and hardly constitute "Star Chambers." Apparently, the transcripts of the relevant proceeding have also been released for
public's review. All jury deliberation, grand and trial, are also never public affairs.

More importantly, although a grand jury is suppose to only determine if there is probable cause, they can do whatever they wish without legal repercussion.

Similar to jury nullification at trial, which many on DU strongly support, it certainly is controversial, but no billing even if the grand jurors believe probable cause exists, may still happen.

In any event, I have no idea what was going through the minds of any of the grand jurors. I believe that we still don't (and might never) even know the grand jury's final vote (it only required 9 of the 12 to indict).

Also note that a prosecutor is under no legal obligation to limit their grand jury presentation to only inculpatory witnesses or even recommend an indictment.

Recommendations

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

Exactly. Having served on a grand jury, I realize how careful prosecutors are. TygrBright Nov 2014 #1
I have also served on a grand jury. staggerleem Nov 2014 #14
Defendants normally have the right to testify at the grand jury, if they so choose. branford Nov 2014 #23
Thank you for this, loyalsister! Cha Nov 2014 #2
Here is a pretty good explanation of the grand jury process. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #3
I'm sure the why was to insure there wouldn't be a trial. Kablooie Nov 2014 #4
I don't know for sure, but I'm not going to disagree with you. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #5
That's the point. This was a secret 'Star Chamber' proceeding and none of us KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #18
That's not entirely true. branford Nov 2014 #24
Correct. No presumption at the grand jury stage. But for people on DU there should be no JDPriestly Nov 2014 #35
Here is a pretty good explanation of the grand jury process. The CCC Nov 2014 #32
I did not meant to suggest that there should be a presumption of innocence at the grand jury JDPriestly Nov 2014 #36
Thanks for this, I thought his speaking would be a good thing. He was probably coached very well. freshwest Nov 2014 #6
There is a lot of work to be done loyalsister Nov 2014 #8
I agree, but will voices to disengage win out? Even the Browns said to work to change the system. freshwest Nov 2014 #13
The people I have been interacting with loyalsister Nov 2014 #16
I respect and appreciate your actions and the ground work there. I feel better reading it. Thanks. freshwest Nov 2014 #17
Thanks! loyalsister Nov 2014 #37
The OMG quotation was from the diary of Witness #40, not a juror. gvstn Nov 2014 #11
Thanks for clarifying. I could only find the fragment and it didn't say who it was, Just GJ. freshwest Nov 2014 #12
What was so weird about this whole thing.... ReRe Nov 2014 #7
The prosecutor never represents the victim. branford Nov 2014 #25
The State, on behalf... ReRe Nov 2014 #33
That's not correct. branford Nov 2014 #39
I see... ReRe Nov 2014 #40
I'm sorry you were the victim of such a crime, branford Nov 2014 #41
I say I worrry... ReRe Nov 2014 #42
If the prosecutor had only called the witnesses who claimed that Wilson stood over Brown Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #9
The basic question loyalsister Nov 2014 #10
Well he said Wilson never stood over the body, but a picture from a camera phone says Rex Nov 2014 #22
And now he is trying azmom Nov 2014 #15
+ underpants Nov 2014 #19
Very, very strange, indeed. blkmusclmachine Nov 2014 #20
Why did it take months? I read the average time is just one day for a GJ. Rex Nov 2014 #21
This was not a average case, regardless of how one feels about Wilson. branford Nov 2014 #26
I am not sure about the average time loyalsister Nov 2014 #28
We now have evidence of why McCulloch is compromised to the core. Leopolds Ghost Nov 2014 #27
The whole thing was rigged in Wilson's favor blackspade Nov 2014 #29
I'd go back even farther than the grand jury...who is on the commission that chooses them? Lars39 Nov 2014 #30
Grand jurors are randomly chosen from a number of sources, branford Nov 2014 #31
Is it even true that prosecutors can withhold evidence from a grand jury? shaayecanaan Nov 2014 #45
My comments on this thread and others only pertain to what the grand jury and related branford Nov 2014 #46
Go to the 4:50 mark ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #34
mcculloch acted as darren wilson's defense attorney...there was no prosecutor in this case spanone Nov 2014 #38
K&R. I agree. Overseas Nov 2014 #44
K&R. Great to hear attorneys review the procedures. Overseas Nov 2014 #43
It was reported on TV today that tens of thousands of cases go to the Grand Jury. Only sammy750 Nov 2014 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Legal Experts Explain Why...»Reply #24