Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indict

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I received my letter, today, from the District Judge thanking me for my service on the jury. It is a good letter because it expresses the importance of our service as citizens, whether on a trial jury or Grand Jury.


I can only feel, like we did, that the jurors serving to determine probable cause for Michael Brown and Eric Garner took their jobs very seriously.

I know its not always easy, but I thank you as well.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I know its not always easy, but I thank you as well.

Thank you, Brother. It wasn't easy. I cried every night and cried all the way home after it was over. I am feeling much better this week. I commend this Grand Jury for doing what they knew to be right, because that is what they did.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's why these things dont go to trial because the GJ does not believe they can get a conviction.

The Grand Jury does no such thing. Good grief. They don't, or shouldn't, have any thought of what happens during a criminal trial. They have a clear set of instructions on how to proceed. It would be against those instructions to concern themselves with whether or not the Prosecution can win a conviction. It's up to the Prosecutor to present evidence and push for the indictment. If the Prosecutor feels there's not enough evidence to meet the higher trial standard of beyond reasonable doubt, or if it's a fellow LEO, he may choose to not present incriminating evidence or push for the indictment. It's up to the Prosecutor to think about the trial, NOT the grand jury.

Again, GJ's are supposed to be ex parte, so why was the defendant's lawyers allowed 2 hours to plead their case and claim the officer has felt really bad for what happened?

Unfortunately, GJ's are also completely sealed, so we'll likely never know what happened in the proceedings.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I received my letter, today, from the District Judge thanking me for my service on the jury. It is a good letter because it expresses the importance of our service as citizens, whether on a trial jury or Grand Jury.

I can only feel, like we did, that the jurors serving to determine probable cause for Michael Brown and Eric Garner took their jobs very seriously.

Were you on a Grand Jury or trial jury?

[n david]

Originally Posted by jfrog

And you assume guilty after proven innocent? The cop that "choked" the guy never faced an actual trial because the preliminary grand jury didn't feel there was enough of a case to even go to trial. That you disregard that is you assuming guilt after innocence has been declared.

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

The Grand Jury does no such thing. Good grief. They don't, or shouldn't, have any thought of what happens during a criminal trial. .

That was a poor way of putting it but in essence it's true. GJs determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial

[Praxeas]

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. .

What are the requirements for a grand jury to decide to indict someone?
The only requirement is that probable cause exists to support criminal charges against the accused person. In essence, the grand juror must feel there is enough evidence against the person to proceed to trial. It is a very low standard. You could have one witness, a victim, come in and testify without any corroborating physical evidence and get ​an indictment. That is rare but it does occur in some cases of sexual assault with victims who don’t approach authorities until many years after an incident.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/6-your-qu...uries-answered

[Jermyn Davidson]

Pressing On,

A couple of months ago, you criticized and took my comment out of context about whether or not if I would kill American citizens in the conduct of duty.

What is interesting is that, specifically with the Eric Garner case, Officer Pantaleo did kill Eric Garner, without good reason, but you state the officer is not guilty of a crime here.

Your criticism of me and the circumstances of the Eric Garner case are oranges and tangerines and I find many of the views expressed on this thread simply deplorable and lacking of any real life negative interaction with a cop.

In other words, some people on this thread appear to be ignorant.

If a person has a Mayberry point of view of cops, it is simply not possible for the cops to ever do wrong.

However, Officer Pantaleo did do wrong and God knows how to right the wrongs of oppressors, especially when our flawed, human system of justice fails us.

Rest In Peace, Eric Garner.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That was a poor way of putting it but in essence it's true. GJs determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial

Right, the standard is probable cause, which most legal experts state is very easy to obtain. Unless, of course, the defendant is a cop. In those cases, a very small percentage ever go to trial. IMO that's due to Prosecutorial bias and the secrecy of the proceedings. Every cop case should have a special prosecutor appointed, so as to not have that conflict of interest.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thank you, Brother. It wasn't easy. I cried every night and cried all the way home after it was over. I am feeling much better this week. I commend this Grand Jury for doing what they knew to be right, because that is what they did.

Do you think that a jury is always right 100% of the time?