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.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

It shouldn't be allowed, and it's typically never allowed, yet read for yourself - the Prosecutor allowed the cop himself to plead his case. That's worse than I thought and stated previously, when I posted the cop's attorney spoke to the GJ.

The proceedings in Staten Island are still secret, but Pantaleo's lawyer, Stuart London, told the Times that his client spoke to the grand jury for two hours. (Most potential defendants don't get that chance.) "He wanted to get across to the grand jury that it was never his intention to injure or harm anyone," London said. Pantaleo repeated that sentiment in a statement on Wednesday, adding that he had become a police officer to "protect" people and that Garner's death made him feel bad: "My family and I include him and his family in our prayers and I hope that they will accept my personal condolences for their loss."

Awe, he feels bad. See why I have no trust of this Prosecutor and believe a new Special Prosecutor should be appointed and new GJ convened. This process was tainted by a biased prosecutor, who did more to protect the defendant than prosecute him.

Shouldn't be any surprise this GJ didn't true bill the cop...the Prosecutor likely soft-balled the indictment.

IMO, the Prosecutor should be investigated by the DOJ to see 1) why the defendant was allowed 2 hours of testimony, and 2) what evidence was withheld from the GJ. The prosecutor chooses what evidence to present, the GJ doesn't cannot choose what evidence to view/hear, it's whatever is presented to them.

Also: "As a matter of process, the route to the failure to indict is probably simple: the prosecutor who presented the case led the grand jurors that way. That's how grand juries tend to work (and why criticisms of the outcome should not be taken as an attack on individual jurors); the bar for them to find probable cause to charge a person is low, unless--as transcripts show was the case in Ferguson--prosecutors decide to raise it. Given the incarceration rates in this country, most people don't need a video tape to know that."

source link

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

Probable cause would be correct; however, having probable cause and having enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt are very different things. The GJ is instructed only for probable cause. They are to ignore the reasonable doubt standard.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

It shouldn't be allowed, and it's typically never allowed, yet read for yourself - the Prosecutor allowed the cop himself to plead his case. That's worse than I thought and stated previously, when I posted the cop's attorney spoke to the GJ.

The Defense Attorney is not allowed. Witnesses are allowed. Attorneys are not allowed to accompany their clients, but the clients are allowed. And, again, it is at the discretion of the Grand Jury.

Apparently, you are too emotional about this to be reasonable about the process. Any further discussion on this issue is simply pointless, IMO.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The Defense Attorney is not allowed. Witnesses are allowed. Attorneys are not allowed to accompany their clients, but the clients are allowed. And, again, it is at the discretion of the Grand Jury.

In the majority of cases, the defendant is not allowed, especially to plead his case. The allowance of this cop as a witness only shows the Prosecutor was not intent on getting a true bill from the GJ.

Interesting the Prosecutor doesn't want the transcripts of the proceedings released. What's he afraid of, being viewed as biased towards the defendant?

Also, any/all evidence is the discretion of the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor dictates and runs the show, not the GJ. The GJ is simply there to see/hear the evidence given by the Prosecutor. In some cases, the Prosecutor doesn't even send a case to the GJ.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Apparently, you are too emotional about this to be reasonable about the process. Any further discussion on this issue is simply pointless, IMO.

Back to the "too emotional" excuse? As though you're the only one with a reasonable opinion. That's incredibly arrogant and completely incorrect.

But you're right, you should stop responding to my posts, since you have nothing factual to say.

The facts (without emotion) remain:
~The cops moved and took down a man who was not acting in a threatening manner.

~A cop wrapped his arm around the neck while on the ground, then let go only to push down the alleged suspect's head and neck into the pavement. A cop also kneeled on his back while the alleged suspect was on the ground.

~The alleged suspect said, "I can't breathe" nine times. The cops did nothing to assist him.

~NYPD provided no proof to their reason for arresting Garner.

~The cop in question has lawsuits and complaints of unlawful arrests prior to his takedown of Garner.

~The official coroner's report says the primary cause of death was "compression of neck, compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police."

~The Prosecutor allowed the defendant 2 hours of testimony to plead his case. Defendants may be called as witnesses, but they are there to answer questions, never to plead their case and present their defense.

Those are simply the facts, not emotion.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

But you're right, you should stop responding to my posts, since you have nothing factual to say.

Now who is being arrogant? Merry Christmas, David.

[jfrog]

Everything I've read said the grand jury can request to have the defendant testify.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Pressing On must have me on ignore. LOL

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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.

No he did not

Ive already provided the information to read

Death was not solely attributed to this one cops actions

Death was attributed to three factors. Neck compression, Chest compression (being prone on his stomach) and preexisting conditions

Second, the man was suspected of breaking the law and was being combative

The officers, NOT the guy that did the head lock, decided to detain him and he resisted

When suspects resist the police are trained to subdue him. Police do it all across America daily

Sometimes it has happened that a suspect has preexisting conditions that lead to death or injury.

That is a fact and that is probably why the GJ not indict because there was no intent

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

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.

Look...if you want to change the topic to every police case should have a special prosecutor fine. But having said that is not proof that this cop was not indicted just to do a favor.

You take that slippery slope you might as well admit Daron Wilson got the same favor and should have been indicted

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

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

Im gonna answer

I believe Juries are right MOST of the time...even when someone was really innocent.

Why? Because they based their decision on the evidence and if someone is innocent but found guilty, often it was not the Jury's fault but the prosecutor or defense or they just did not have the right evidence