Members Grand jury fury
Grand jury power
One of the most powerful controls over our liberties in the world today is the power of the Grand jury.
Even though the grand jury originated in England it it virtualy unknown in the rest of the world now.
The grand jury was a part of the Magna Carta King John was force to sign as a result of the nobility demanding justice from the Kings court system of the time.
Originally there were 23 grand jurors of whom only 12 a simple majority was required to return an indictment of a case against the accused.Today,from only 12 grand jurors, 9 are needed to return an indictment against a defendent to go to trial.
Grand juries are jurors.with the exception that grand jurors only judge weather there is enough evidence as to weather a crime or civil infraction has occured,not as to weather a defendant is guilty or not.The jurors for any court trial that a grand jury allows as a result of an indictment any are another kind of juror or "judge". That's right jurors are judges.During a trial the court judge is only a referee even though a juror may not know the law or even be a lawyer ,non the less they are judges.
Grand jurors were allowed in the past to do an independent investigation of any evidence of a criminal or civil infraction presented to them by any citizen who claimed to have evidence against another citizen.Today,professional prosecutors have taken over most of the role originaly exersized by the members of the grand jury as well as the average citizen who claimed to have evidence of wrong doing. Not only is the grand jury,or any jury no longer allowed to do an independent investigation of the evidence,they are not even allowed to question the prosecutor's supposed evidence being presented to them for the purpose of getting an indictment against the preposed defendent by the prosecutor.This is done they say as to not prejudice the jury.I can't help but think that there is another reason for this blackout of information.It seems they are afraid a juror will be swayed by the media or other source of information.Yet in most cases the jurors are allowed to go home at night to family and friends ,but are not allowed to talk about the trial for fear it might be picked up by the media .What about everyone else in the court room .The people watching the trial proceedings .I take it they are sworn to secrecy as well
In my mind limiting evidence a jury can see doesn't make sense.On one hand it could prejudice the jury to vote for a trial and on the other it could prevent a jury from voting that enough evidence exists. Limiting the information a jury gets can only be a miscarrage of justice as can make an impact on how a jury votes as to wheather there is probable cause that a suspect has committed a crime or not and.Letting the prosecutor decide what evidence to present limits the jurors as to what they may need to reasonably judge wheather or not the evidence presented by the prosecutor is valid enough ? Why should they have to take the prosecutors word for it?
The judge in a regular court case is there only as a kind of referee If,the judge and the prosecutor don't trust the jurors to be impartial .What about prosecutors and even judges who withold or disallow information in a court trial just so he or she can win their court case against the defendant?It all seems too onesided to me.Like the truth is only what I say it is attitude.
Any evidence the prosecutor brings before a grand jury ,be it truthful or not would make no difference since the grand jury has no power to investigate any allegations made by the prosecutor.
ANY plausable evidence would suffice ,legitimate or not,even evidence that would not be allowed in a trial, even if, an indictment was forthcoming! Does that sound logical to you? The evidence being used to bring an indictment can't be used at trial? Why bother to even use it, to get an indictment at all?
Theres something rotten in Denmark as they say!
A runaway grand jury is supposed by someone? Who? I don't know ?A grand jury that aggressively goes beyond the control of the prosecuting attorney is considered a runnaway grand jury.
Government corruption might have something to do with calling a grand jury a runnaway jury.I wouldn't be surprised
.If a grand jury believes that the prosecutor is being unduly influenced somehow by officals of the government or organized crime to not bring an indictment even if the evidence clearly shows there is probable cause that a crime has been committed ,then they may be subjected to being called a runnaway grand jury by the prosecutor.
Why would there even be a reason to convene a grand jury?If, there is letgitimate evidence that crime has been committed and the prosecutor knows it,and is trying to protect someone or the evidence is not legitimate.and the prosecutor is trying to use an indictment to influence someone for some unknown reason makes no difference.Either way the prosecutor may be considered the runnaway,if he knowingly does either one of those actions while at the same time calling the grand jury a runnaway jury is, undue influence in any case.
My question is why has the grand jury been regulated to being the yes men,for the prosecutors whenever an indictment of someone is requested by the prosecutor?
It seems to me that,the role of the grand jury has been to rubber stamp the prosecutors evidence as the truth in the eyes of the public It seems the grand jury is under the thumb of those in the justice department.
One of the most famous cases was the
1935 runnaway grand jury in NEWYORK, which was investigating gambling and mobster Dutch Shuiltz. Jury members complained in open court, which was widely reported by the press, that prosecutors were not pursuing obvious leads and hinted that the district attorney was possibly receiving payoffs. Thomas E. Duwey was appointed as an independent prosecutor and would rocket to fame on his prosecutors
