|
|
|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
12-22-2014, 01:57 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 48
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Innocent until proven guilty (which he wasn't).
|
The presumption of innocence is a legal term used once a person has been charged with a crime. It's the prosecutor's job to make the case against the defendant in front of a jury, not present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. This was a total farce.
|
12-22-2014, 01:58 PM
|
 |
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 26,554
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
...... was never established.
John
|
In our system of jurisprudence, it need not be established. It simply is, until proven otherwise.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
12-22-2014, 01:59 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Innocent until proven guilty (which he wasn't).
|
The presumption of innocence is inoperative here since the matter was never adjudicated. The whole concept is irrelevant in the grand jury system.
John
|
12-22-2014, 01:59 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 48
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
|
Preponderance of evidence is not a grand jury consideration. Fuck. It's not even a criminal term. Preponderance of evidence is the determining factor in a civil case. The term you are searching for is "beyond a reasonable doubt," but again, that isn't for a grand jury to decide.
|
12-22-2014, 02:01 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 26,554
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta
The presumption of innocence is a legal term used once a person has been charged with a crime. It's the prosecutor's job to make the case against the defendant in front of a jury, not present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. This was a total farce.
|
Read the linked article above and if you come away thinking that a preponderance of evidence supported an indictment, your capacity to reason is considerably different than mine.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
12-22-2014, 02:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 48
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
In our system of jurisprudence, it need not be established. It simply is, until proven otherwise.
|
You're not a lawyer. Got it.
|
12-22-2014, 02:02 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 26,554
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta
Preponderance of evidence is not a grand jury consideration. Fuck. It's not even a criminal term. Preponderance of evidence is the determining factor in a civil case. The term you are searching for is "beyond a reasonable doubt," but again, that isn't for a grand jury to decide.
|
Read the feckin' link and get back with me on exactly how the evidence supported an indictment.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
12-22-2014, 02:03 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 48
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Read the linked article above and if you come away thinking that a preponderance of evidence supported an indictment, your capacity to reason is considerably different than mine.
|
Grand juries to not weigh evidence based on a "preponderance of evidence." They just don't. They are supposed to look at enough evidence to see if a case should be bound over to a petit jury. That's it.
And my capacity to reason is based on how our system of justice is supposed to work and not on some, "my team must win at all costs" mentality that you seem to be displaying here.
Why do you have a problem with petit juries?
|
12-22-2014, 02:05 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 48
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Read the feckin' link and get back with me on exactly how the evidence supported an indictment.
|
Because it did. Because that's how grand juries are supposed to work. Because 99% of the time, that is how they work.
Newflash for you: There is no way in hell that Wilson's attorney would ever let him freely testify in front of a grand jury unless he knew Wilson was going to get lobbed softballs and that there would ultimately be no indictment. It just doesn't work that way.
|
12-22-2014, 02:06 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 26,554
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta
Grand juries to not weigh evidence based on a "preponderance of evidence." They just don't. They are supposed to look at enough evidence to see if a case should be bound over to a petit jury. That's it.
And my capacity to reason is based on how our system of justice is supposed to work and not on some, "my team must win at all costs" mentality that you seem to be displaying here.
Why do you have a problem with petit juries?
|
No, but I have a problem indicting anyone just to calm street mobs if probable cause is not established .
Read the article.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 PM.
|
Linear Mode
