Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • unofan,

    I am reading a couple of articles about this and this quote stuck out:

    "If they wanted to make an assessment about different charges, they could've done that. But our recommendation was that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in their acts and their conduct,"
    Now to me that seems a bit twisted. Would a Grand Jury go against the recommendations of the prosecutor if they are saying it was justified? I know they can do that but I can't imagine that happens very often especially in the case where it is an officer involved shooting.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Handyman View Post

      Which is where it should be. The prosecutor didnt present homicide but the AG said the GJ heard all the relevant info and chose not to charge homicide. They tanked it. The AG threw the GJ under the bus on national TV they should be able to respond to that.

      I am still not seeing what the problem here is. This was not some undercover CIA action or putting National Security in jeopardy. The AG made it a public issue with his PC and the Grand Juror called him out for it because they feel they are being railroaded to forward a political agenda.

      Seriously read the complaint you might understand it better.
      I read the complaint. I understand it perfectly fine. My point is that the neither the prosecutor nor the grand jury wanted to, or wants to, prosecute these cops, but neither wants to be seen as the bad guy. The prosecutor gives it to the grand jury because the grand jury proceedings are confidential and the identity of the jurors is unknown to the public, so it is subject to public ridicule as a group, but not personally. The juror apparently isn't happy with that and wants the prosecutor to take the blame personally, in the public's eye.
      That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Handyman View Post
        unofan,

        I am reading a couple of articles about this and this quote stuck out:



        Now to me that seems a bit twisted. Would a Grand Jury go against the recommendations of the prosecutor if they are saying it was justified? I know they can do that but I can't imagine that happens very often especially in the case where it is an officer involved shooting.
        Grand juries are so rare here, and I don't do criminal law, that i don't know for sure. But the adage that a prosecutor could secure an indictment against a ham sandwich probably holds true because they are generally one sided affairs. The prosecutor puts on what they want and nothing else. The biggest inconsistency in treatment when it comes to cops versus the average defendant is that prosecutors often present a fuller picture for the cops, giving the grand jury an out.

        Not saying that happened here, but it's possible.

        Comment


        • While I do not weep for this prosecutor, my understanding is that in most states, GJ testimony is to be sealed with virtually zero chance of release. This is a way to entice potential witnesses to testify. Does releasing this full transcript blow that up?

          Were there any witnesses? Am I tilting against windmills here?
          I gotta little bit of smoke and a whole lotta wine...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by unofan View Post

            Grand juries are so rare here, and I don't do criminal law, that i don't know for sure. But the adage that a prosecutor could secure an indictment against a ham sandwich probably holds true because they are generally one sided affairs. The prosecutor puts on what they want and nothing else. The biggest inconsistency in treatment when it comes to cops versus the average defendant is that prosecutors often present a fuller picture for the cops, giving the grand jury an out.

            Not saying that happened here, but it's possible.
            I did read one article on Kentucky grand juries which said that there is about a 98% indictment rate, so there is that.
            That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

            Comment


            • Doesn't the grand jury though, only consider on the charges put before them by the prosecutor? Meaning, if they thought those two officers acted responsibly, then he didn't put forward any charges against them? Or if he only put a charge of manslaughter before the jury, they can't vote to indict for murder.
              What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rufus View Post
                Doesn't the grand jury though, only consider on the charges put before them by the prosecutor? Meaning, if they thought those two officers acted responsibly, then he didn't put forward any charges against them? Or if he only put a charge of manslaughter before the jury, they can't vote to indict for murder.
                From what I read the GJ can ask about other changes and the prosecution has to explain it and they can choose to indict. Not sure they would do that if the DA is saying they think it is justified.

                And the AG chose to release the transcript so no one to blame but themselves for the backlash.

                (Again based on the articles I have read)
                "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                -aparch

                "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                -INCH

                Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                Comment


                • Originally posted by unofan View Post

                  Grand juries are so rare here, and I don't do criminal law, that i don't know for sure. But the adage that a prosecutor could secure an indictment against a ham sandwich probably holds true because they are generally one sided affairs. The prosecutor puts on what they want and nothing else. The biggest inconsistency in treatment when it comes to cops versus the average defendant is that prosecutors often present a fuller picture for the cops, giving the grand jury an out.

                  Not saying that happened here, but it's possible.
                  Michigan's criminal law allows for grand juries, but is is almost never used there either. Instead the prosecution holds a preliminary hearing before a district court judge, who will decide if there is sufficient probable cause to charge a defendant and bound the case to the circuit courts. The biggest difference is in the preliminary hearing, the defense is allowed to bring evidence of their own and cross examine witnesses. I would imagine there are plusses and minuses to both systems, but I think Michigan's avoidance of grand juries is probably better overall.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post

                    Michigan's criminal law allows for grand juries, but is is almost never used there either. Instead the prosecution holds a preliminary hearing before a district court judge, who will decide if there is sufficient probable cause to charge a defendant and bound the case to the circuit courts. The biggest difference is in the preliminary hearing, the defense is allowed to bring evidence of their own and cross examine witnesses. I would imagine there are plusses and minuses to both systems, but I think Michigan's avoidance of grand juries is probably better overall.
                    Big plus for the jury pool - grand jury duty lasts for months and no one wants that sh*t.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                      From what I read the GJ can ask about other changes and the prosecution has to explain it and they can choose to indict. Not sure they would do that if the DA is saying they think it is justified.
                      Absolutely spot on correct. Again. The DA knows the law. The GJ are usually non-lawyers.

                      I hope all of this agreement stuff isn't hurting your cred with the rest of the Loungers ...
                      Sworn Enemy of the Perpetually Offended
                      Montreal Expos Forever ...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post

                        Big plus for the jury pool - grand jury duty lasts for months and no one wants that sh*t.
                        I have now been subject to 27 jury calls and never had to as much go in for selection. I have joked (?) with my wife when it happens it will be the longest GJ in history and last for years, like one of those Medieval Kyoto trials where the jurors literally had to sell their homes and moved to the court city.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • I was supposed to be in a Federal Grand Jury in May but it got cancelled due to the Pandemic. I was on a jury once like 15 years ago on a lawsuit against a McDonald's. Wasn't much of a trial...
                          "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                          -aparch

                          "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                          -INCH

                          Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                          -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                          Comment


                          • I got the call once, and actually had to go into the courtroom. They picked a jury before my number came up, and then the other case was settled so they sent us all home. That was maybe 6 or 7 years ago? Nothing since.

                            Comment


                            • I was brought up for jury selection the one time I got called to duty and was eliminated for cause.
                              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                                I was brought up for jury selection the one time I got called to duty and was eliminated for cause.
                                I read this in mookie's voice for some reason. Like it was a sex tourism case and they didn't want a subject matter expert.
                                Last edited by Kepler; 10-01-2020, 11:00 AM.
                                Cornell University
                                National Champion 1967, 1970
                                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X