Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What is A Grand Jury
#3
PART 3

Okay so we’ve learned that charging by information is used far more often. It’s simpler, it’s cheaper, it's less complicated, and there’s no risk that the GJ would come back with a no bill, effectively shooting the prosecutor in the foot and making his ability to bring charges much harder.

So why would a prosecutor proceed via grand jury? That’s a more complicated question, especially in Colorado. But, to keep it simple, GJ’s essentially have three advantages over proceeding by information:

(1) the grand jury is a means for the prosecution to test and hone their theories of the case – almost like a test run of the prosecution case at trial;

(2) In Colorado, the grand jury can be used both as a charging tool and as an investigative tool; and

(3) there are (arguably) some advantages to proceeding by GJ if you’re worried about the political optics.

[Assumption Alert:] I’m confident that we can safely assume all 3 of these "advantages" played a role in A. Hunter’s decision to use a GJ in this case.

First Advantage: This is really, really important to understand and it goes to the absolute heart of GJ proceedings: At the GJ only the prosecution presents their case. This is the critical difference between the grand jury and the trial itself. It is not adversarial in the slightest; in fact, it’s the opposite. The only people who are allowed into the grand jury proceedings are (1) the prosecutor, (2) the GJ jurors, and – when called or presented – (3) the documents and witness testimony supporting the prosecution’s theory of the case. (And a court reporter, who is also sworn to secrecy.)

A GJ presentation is completely one-sided. Witnesses who are called can bring an attorney to observe, but the attorney cannot speak. There are no attorneys for the “defendants” who can object to the prosecution, present alternative theories, point out prosecution weaknesses, or otherwise poke holes in the prosecution’s case. (Aside: the future "defendants" are actually referred to as “targets” at the GJ stage.) There’s not even a judge in the room to push back if the prosecution is straying outside legal boundaries.

The fact that the jurors only hear one side of the story at GJ often makes the charges and the defendant’s guilt seem completely & utterly obvious. This is the origin of the well-known saying in legal circles, “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.” (I.e., they'll blame anyone for anything.)

So what’s the point of this one-sided presentation? This brings me to:

Second Advantage: GJs are as much an investigative tool as they are a charging tool. Grand jurors can also be used by the prosecutor to continue to investigate a case where the leads have stalled. If witnesses have stopped talking to police, or if they refuse to produce documents, the prosecutor can ask the GJs to “subpoena” these witnesses and documents.

[Note: This is a big difference from jurors at the trial itself (called petit jurors). At the trial, jurors have to just sit there and hear the evidence that’s presented to them: They can’t ask either side to present evidence if the parties don’t do so themselves. By contrast, the prosecutor can say to the GJ: “Gee, we really want to talk to Fleet White (for example), but he’s refusing to speak to us (or will only talk to us with an attorney present).” The GJ can turn around and subpoena FW, and he has to show up and testify. (Or plead the 5th, again, something to get to later.)]

GJs can also be helpful if the prosecution suspects there are accomplices to the main targets. The prosecutor can offer accomplices immunity from prosecution in exchange for their GJ (and later trial) testimony.

Because the GJ is an investigative tool, it’s proceedings are always closed to the public, and the court reporter’s transcripts are sealed. If they weren’t sealed, the targets of the investigation would essentially be getting a free preview to the prosecutor’s case. It would compromise the investigation. Sealing the GJ also protects the target, in that if the GJ doesn’t result in an indictment, the target’s reputation isn’t dragged through the mud from a one-sided presentation of the case becoming public.

As for testing the prosecution’s theory of the case, the GJ can also be very helpful. For instance, the grand jurors can ask the prosecutor questions (this can vary by jurisdiction), and as mentioned above, they can request to see documents or witnesses if they think that information would be helpful to their deliberations. The jurors’ questions provide some insight to the prosecution: What themes resonate with the jury? What is falling flat? What are the gaps of the case that the GJ felt they needed to know more about? What do their questions reveal about any reasonable doubts that may exist about the target’s guilt?

GJ testimony can also be helpful in terms of having the prosecution’s witnesses “practice” their testimony, and for giving the prosecutor a preview into what witnesses for the defense might be likely to say at trial.

Finally, and most importantly, as I mentioned above, the prosecution selects the charges that the grand jury will vote on. If, for instance, the prosecutor gives the GJ the option to vote for first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter – but the GJ only votes to indict on manslaughter - then the prosecutor has a pretty clear indication that he won’t succeed in obtaining a guilty verdict at trial on the more serious offenses. (Especially, where at trial the prosecution isn't just shooting at an empty net.)

Again, this last piece is super important to understanding the true bill in this case and what happened thereafter.

Third Advantage: The political angle. As noted above, if the prosecutor proceeds by information, the charging decision is solely in his hands. If the prosecutor proceeds by GJ, however, some people think it provides the prosecutor with some political cover. (i.e., Geez, it's not my fault we couldn't indict the Ramseys, the GJ decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence to move forward, not me!)

[Assumption Alert]: We know that the BPD was pushing hard to charge the Ramseys, but the DAs office had some doubts.

Proceeding by GJ meant that A. Hunter could pacify BPD, the public, and certain anti-Ramsey politicians, while not necessarily directly tying the DAs office to the charging decision. A. Hunter's announcement following the GJ here was very carefully worded, trust on that.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
What is A Grand Jury - by jameson245 - 08-07-2017, 04:51 PM
RE: What is A Grand Jury - by jameson245 - 08-07-2017, 04:52 PM
RE: What is A Grand Jury - by jameson245 - 08-07-2017, 04:54 PM
RE: What is A Grand Jury - by jameson245 - 08-07-2017, 04:55 PM
RE: What is A Grand Jury - by jameson245 - 08-07-2017, 04:56 PM
RE: What is A Grand Jury - by jameson245 - 08-07-2017, 04:56 PM
RE: What is A Grand Jury - by jameson245 - 08-07-2017, 04:58 PM
RE: What is A Grand Jury - by jameson245 - 08-07-2017, 05:00 PM
RE: What is A Grand Jury - by jameson245 - 08-07-2017, 05:01 PM
RE: What is A Grand Jury - by Toth - 08-07-2017, 06:42 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)