Grand Jury

[dpinsd]

What is the name of your state? California

Can anyone answer why the state chooses to use a grand jury hearing rather than just arresting someone of a crime. Is it due to lack of evidence or a weak case.

Thanks
Dennis

 

[The Occultist]

I wasn't aware those two things were exclusionary.

 

[veruca47]

Grand jury

If my understanding of the grand jury system is correct, the grand jury indictment comes before the arrest. Basically the state (eg district attorney) will present evidence of a crime before a grand jury, hoping the grand jury members will "true-bill" the person whose crimes are being discussed.

After someone is "true-billed", a warrant for arrest is issued. Depending on severity of crime, the person in question will be picked up and taken to jail by sheriff's deputies.

Grand jury indictments are often criticized as unconstitutional, as defendants are not informed of the hearing beforehand, and a district attorney my re-present evidence over and over to new grand juries until they get the true-bill verdict. For example, Tom DeLay's case was run past no fewer than three grand juries. If a grand jury doesn't think there is enough evidence for an arrest, they will "no-bill" the person.

(This is how they do it in Texas, YMMV)

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state? California

Can anyone answer why the state chooses to use a grand jury hearing rather than just arresting someone of a crime. Is it due to lack of evidence or a weak case.

Thanks
Dennis

**A: do you have a specific actual case you are asking about?

 

[Indiana Filer]

What is the name of your state? California

Can anyone answer why the state chooses to use a grand jury hearing rather than just arresting someone of a crime. Is it due to lack of evidence or a weak case.

Thanks
Dennis

It could be because the circumstances of the case make it difficult to tell if a crime actually occurred.

My friend's sister MK shot my friend's husband, killing him. The case went to the grand jury.

MK will tell anyone that she shot the guy, but she claimed that it was in the act of saving the life of her sister, since the husband was in the middle of beating his wife's head into the sidewalk. If MK hadn't acted, he probably would have killed his wife. The grand jury had to look at the case, and then decide if MK was justified in the shoot or if she committed a crime when she shot him.

The grand jury issued a no-bill in this case.

 

[45Frank]

The GJ may also amend charges, in NJ you may add, change or lower charges presented.

I sat for 17 weeks and it is basically a joke, the prosecutor side gets to say anything they want, it's all one sided. Most of the cases we heard where for the newspaper high profile cases, CYA so to say.
A good prosecutor could get charges against mother Therisa if he so wanted it's so one sided.

 

[dpinsd]

thanks for all your answers and opinions. The situation that is going on in my area is a of a person if interest in a double murder. I would have assumed that if they had a open and shut case, an arrest would have already had come about. The issue is that the person in question has multiple, not related to each other and on separate occasions saying he was in one place when the murders occurred.

I would have thought that if there was any physical evidence such as a witness or DNA evidence that they would not wait to make an arrest and he would have been taken down almost right off the bat. The only thing I can think of in this case is they feel he did the crime but don't have much to prove it so they are presenting it to a grand jury,because of how one sided it is, so that an arrest can be made. Just my opinion.

Any input on this feeling?

Dennis

 

[CavemanLawyer]

A grand jury must true bill it before felony charges can actually be filed. In other words, it is the means by which an indictment is filed. This is completely separate from an arrest. An arrest warrant can be issued just if there is probable cause that the crime has been committed. After arrest, the person can then be picked up and either make bond or wait it out in jail to see of the case is true billed by the grand jury.

Typically the only time that a case is presented to the grand jury before an arrest is made is if the suspect has absconded and cannot be found. Then you present to grand jury and indict with the defendant at large so that you stop the statute of limitations from running.

 

[CdwJava]

California RARELY uses the Grand Jury for an indictment. I cannot recall the last time we pursued a case through a Grand Jury.

The advantage of using the Grand Jury is that the testimony can be in secret and not subject to disclosure. This is important if the prosecution wants to keep its case secret for a time. For a complex murder case with potentially outstanding suspects or witnesses who need to be secured, this can be a good idea.

In CA we can arrest on probable cause and then a judge evaluates the statement of probable cause. After that the DA files for charges, there is an arraignment and then a preliminary hearing. The GJ can largely bypass the preliminary hearing, if I recall it properly - though an arraignment would still have to be held.

- Carl

 

[dpinsd]

Thanks,

Can you specify what you meant by "potentially outstanding suspects or witnesses"?

I would just assume that if there was a significant amount of evidence, they would use a grand jury to indict.

None the less, from what I have heard so far, it seems that they are using the grand jury to force an arrest for publicity reasons. What I mean by that is, the victims family are really pressing on for an arrest. Maybe I am just looking at it all wrong.

Thanks for all your input though. Very much appreciated.

Dennis

 

[CdwJava]

Thanks,

Can you specify what you meant by "potentially outstanding suspects or witnesses"?

Let's say we know how a crime was committed, but we don't have all the suspects in custody or witnesses located. If we have at least one in custody, but we don't want the defense to know our theory of the case just yet because the outstanding suspect (and any unidentified witnesses) might be able to conceal evidence, remain in hiding, or intimidate witnesses before we catch them, then we might go to a GJ where the evidence and the theory of the crime can remain a secret.

We're working such a case right now where we might consider going to the grand jury because we have an outstanding "person of interest" ... fortunately, we probably won't have to because our main suspect in the shooting decided to do himself in thus saving us the trouble of making that call.

I would just assume that if there was a significant amount of evidence, they would use a grand jury to indict.

Not necessarily. Going to a preliminary hearing and overwhelming the defense with a mountain of incriminating evidence is a good way to compel a deal.

None the less, from what I have heard so far, it seems that they are using the grand jury to force an arrest for publicity reasons. What I mean by that is, the victims family are really pressing on for an arrest. Maybe I am just looking at it all wrong.

Well, if it is a case of public significance, and there is a lack of hard evidence, the DA may decide to get the monkey off his back and pass the responsibility to a grand jury. that way, if the GJ indicts, he is absolved responsibility ... likewise if they fail to indict. if they fail to indict he can argue that it's not his fault and that the evidence was just too weak so far.

Without knowing the case it is impossible to speculate WHAT the motivation might be to go to a grand jury. But, in CA going to a GJ is extremely rare, and often political.

- Carl

 

[dpinsd]

Thank you very much for your information. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer some of my questions.

Thanks again.
Dennis