Trayvon Martin case: use of Stand Your Ground law or pursuit of a black teen?

[11B4V]

He's brown.

So are we all.

Dont be pullin the Battlestar Galactica card mister.

[Rasputin]

I'm getting the sense from this story that in certain cases a grand jury indictment is optional.  Can someone confirm or deny that, and if true, what are the circumstances that allow a prosecutor to bypass the grand jury?

Yeah I do not understand how such a serious crime would not first have an indictment hearing before a Grand Jury.  It kind of flies in the face of the whole reason we have a Grand Jury in the first place.

the prosecutor can always direct file an "information" in florida which is a charging ducument that bypasses the need for an indictment

[Rasputin]

Seems to me that a trial is the best thing to happen at this point.

I don't know if I agree with that.  Imagine what will happen if Zimmerman isn't convicted?

and if they try him in your typical sanford type community he likely won't be

[Rasputin]

That doesnt matter. What is the news calling him? I havent really followed this.

I saw Reuters call him "white-hispanic" in a recent article.  I don't think I've ever seen that until this particular story.

the racism angle doesn't work if the media use the more traditional "latino", "hispanic", "latin american", or "chicano"

[Rasputin]

Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?

My agenda anti-racist.  What would you call someone who opposes that agenda?

your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui

[Valmy]

and if they try him in your typical sanford type community he likely won't be

Do you know something about this case I don't?  The evidence presented hardly makes it look that clear.  What about the 911 calls and the testimony of the people who heard it?  Some people might find it convincing.

I do not get the ability to bypass the Grand Jury at all.  If you do not need the Grand Jury...why would you need a Grand Jury?  Or is that common?  I thought this was rather an important part of our legal system.

[Valmy]

your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui

But really are we not all here for our own entertainment?

[Valmy]

the racism angle doesn't work if the media use the more traditional "latino", "hispanic", "latin american", or "chicano"

I am not so sure about that.  Weren't the Rodney King beating cops Latinos?  The anger will get focussed on the legal system which does not take the death of black people as crimes or something.  But I think most reasonable people will be satisfied with an investigation that suits the severity of the situation.

[Capetan Mihali]

I do not get the ability to bypass the Grand Jury at all.  If you do not need the Grand Jury...why would you need a Grand Jury?  Or is that common?  I thought this was rather an important part of our legal system.

I gave a half-assed explanation above.  The Grand Jury clause in the Constitution was never incorporated against the states, so it only binds the federal government.  And even they have understood it to mean that no GJ in misdemeanor prosecutions is OK.

[Capetan Mihali]

I'd also say I sense that by and large defendants don't feel very protected by a Grand Jury requirement... the amount of times they return a "No True Bill" is exceedingly small -- the feeling is that they generally just rubberstamp the charges presented by the DA. As well they should, I guess, since they only get the government's case (the defendant isn't there to cross-examine anyone), and the standard of proof is very low [probable cause, the same as for a police officer making an arrest in the first place]).

EDIT: Though in this case, it does seem like there'd be a much higher likelihood of the GJ refusing to issue an indictment than in your everyday shooting in claimed self-defense.

[Valmy]

I'd also say I sense that by and large defendants don't feel very protected by a Grand Jury requirement... the amount of times they return a "No True Bill" is exceedingly small -- the feeling is that they generally just rubberstamp the charges presented by the DA. As well they should, I guess, since they only get the government's case (the defendant isn't there to cross-examine anyone), and the standard of proof is very low [probable cause, the same as for a police officer making an arrest in the first place]).

I am aware of this I served on a Grand Jury.  I still think it can be useful for preventing abuses by the state.  But as these are somewhat rare occasions one might expect the amount of "No True Bill" to be small.  I guess I can see a defendent not wanting 'indicted murderer' or whatever to get out there in a high profile case like this.  But likewise in a case like this the Grand Jury is more likely to carefully consider its options.

[Barrister]

I guess your beloved queen is not white.

Are you sure you aren't confusing Liz with her Greek husband?

[Valmy]

I guess your beloved queen is not white.

Are you sure you aren't confusing Liz with her Greek husband?

Hey!  Prince Philip is a god!  On Vanuatu anyway

[PDH]

I told you all before, get the fuck off my lawn.

Damn kids hanging around smoking cigarettes telling each other how cool they are.  Boot camp for the lot of you.

[Barrister]

I'd also say I sense that by and large defendants don't feel very protected by a Grand Jury requirement... the amount of times they return a "No True Bill" is exceedingly small -- the feeling is that they generally just rubberstamp the charges presented by the DA. As well they should, I guess, since they only get the government's case (the defendant isn't there to cross-examine anyone), and the standard of proof is very low [probable cause, the same as for a police officer making an arrest in the first place]).

I am aware of this I served on a Grand Jury.  I still think it can be useful for preventing abuses by the state.  But as these are somewhat rare occasions one might expect the amount of "No True Bill" to be small.  I guess I can see a defendent not wanting 'indicted murderer' or whatever to get out there in a high profile case like this.  But likewise in a case like this the Grand Jury is more likely to carefully consider its options.

In Canada we do not have Grand Juries, but we do have the preliminary inquiry before we can file an indictment in superior court.  It's similar to a grand jury in that the prosecution must show that there is some evidence which would convict the accused (a very low threshhold).  It's different in that the accused's lawyer is present and gets to cross-examine witnesses, and there's a judge not a jury, but it is still a pre-hearing of the government's case.

As a prosecutor I see very little benefit to the grand jury / preliminary inquiry.  You have to present all the same evidence you woud at a trial, so it isn't any faster than moving straight through to trial.  Really all it does in Canada is give defence a "free" whack at our witnesses.