Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indict

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

It's not the place of the Grand Jury to determine whether or not there's enough of a case for trial. They must view the evidence presented, in this case by a biased Prosecutor, and agree whether or not the evidence presented showed probable cause a crime was committed.

The GJ meets in secrecy with no press allowed. It is supposed to be ex parte, with no testimony from the defendant's side, though this Prosecutor broke that protocol by allowing 2 hours worth of defendant's attorneys testimony. It's also completely up to the prosecutor as to what evidence to present. He can pick and choose what to present. There is no requirement. So when a cop is the defendant, it becomes a tricky issue of bias towards the defendant, which is why so few GJ cop cases actually make it to trial.

It's simply a stacked deck in favor of the cop.

Hopefully Garner's family will sue the cop, NYPD and NYC. Another option is the governor appointing a special prosecutor to present to a different GJ.

I'm hoping both happen.

I understood that there were 50 witnesses and 60 pieces of evidence presented to the Grand Jury. That is allowed and up to the discretion of the GJ as to whether they want to hear them or not. I don't think that the Defense attorney was present, because that is not allowed.

I sat on the jury of a criminal case. One of the jurors explained to me his function when he had been called to sit on Grand Jury in the past. It is exactly how Prax presented it - In essence if they don't believe they can get a conviction, it's the same as saying they don't have probable cause. It would be a waste of the court's time.