How much leeway do prosecutors have in Grand Jury presentations?

[Needsknowledge]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
In Illinois
The State's presentation to the Grand Jury has a lot of information omitted or taken out of context.

For example, that I was photographed when arrested and a photo line-up was drawn up based on that photo which was shown to several witnesses who said something to the effect at the time of "wish they had glasses". Then the State has the officer say that a few days later a photo of me appears in the newspapers and that these same witnesses then contact the police to say they recognized me as the suspect they saw based on that news photo. The officer testifies that the photo line-up and the news photo are substantially the same. The State does not tell the Grand Jury that each of these witnesses failed to recognize me from that initial police photo line-up on the day of the crime, and explain that the news photo they each later saw and based their recognition of me from identified me as the police suspect to the crime.

The State's presentation was later challenged to dismiss on another basis. The State quickly made a new presentation to the Grand Jury (2nd one) in which it claimed that the presentation was the same and that it merely omitted the information that had been challenged in the first presentation.

But the new Grand Jury transcript shows that the State made it's second presentation not like clean like new, but started off by telling the Grand Jury that they were presenting to "correct" the original indictment. So the State basically told the Grand Jury that I had already been indicted, implying that there was already sufficient evidence to indict me.

Can the State omit important details and slant everything around like this?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
In Illinois
The State's presentation to the Grand Jury has a lot of information omitted or taken out of context.

For example, that I was photographed when arrested and a photo line-up was drawn up based on that photo which was shown to several witnesses who said something to the effect at the time of "wish they had glasses". Then the State has the officer say that a few days later a photo of me appears in the newspapers and that these same witnesses then contact the police to say they recognized me as the suspect they saw based on that news photo. The officer testifies that the photo line-up and the news photo are substantially the same. The State does not tell the Grand Jury that each of these witnesses failed to recognize me from that initial police photo line-up on the day of the crime, and explain that the news photo they each later saw and based their recognition of me from identified me as the police suspect to the crime.

The State's presentation was later challenged to dismiss on another basis. The State quickly made a new presentation to the Grand Jury (2nd one) in which it claimed that the presentation was the same and that it merely omitted the information that had been challenged in the first presentation.

But the new Grand Jury transcript shows that the State made it's second presentation not like clean like new, but started off by telling the Grand Jury that they were presenting to "correct" the original indictment. So the State basically told the Grand Jury that I had already been indicted, implying that there was already sufficient evidence to indict me.

Can the State omit important details and slant everything around like this?

Your attorney is the best person to be speaking to, not a bunch of random folks on the internet.

 

[Needsknowledge]

Your attorney is the best person to be speaking to, not a bunch of random folks on the internet.

I am talking to my attorney, but I want to have SOME idea of the parameters that prosecutors are able to operate in. My attorney is a PD who is inclined to let everything slide so far regarding the State's actions without explanation. He is rushed and doesn't have time to answer my questions. I want to hound him on this if I have some reasonable basis to do so because I think the GJ presentation misrepresents a lot, not just a little. But, if I am being way off base and prosecutors normally slant and omit to the Grand Jury, then I want to know.

 

[Zigner]

I am talking to my attorney, but I want to have SOME idea of the parameters that prosecutors are able to operate in. My attorney is a PD who is inclined to let everything slide so far regarding the State's actions without explanation. He is rushed and doesn't have time to answer my questions. I want to hound him on this if I have some reasonable basis to do so because I think the GJ presentation misrepresents a lot, not just a little. But, if I am being way off base and prosecutors normally slant and omit to the Grand Jury, then I want to know.

If you don't trust your attorney, then find a new attorney. We will not second guess your attorney.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
In Illinois
The State's presentation to the Grand Jury has a lot of information omitted or taken out of context.

For example, that I was photographed when arrested and a photo line-up was drawn up based on that photo which was shown to several witnesses who said something to the effect at the time of "wish they had glasses". Then the State has the officer say that a few days later a photo of me appears in the newspapers and that these same witnesses then contact the police to say they recognized me as the suspect they saw based on that news photo. The officer testifies that the photo line-up and the news photo are substantially the same. The State does not tell the Grand Jury that each of these witnesses failed to recognize me from that initial police photo line-up on the day of the crime, and explain that the news photo they each later saw and based their recognition of me from identified me as the police suspect to the crime.

The State's presentation was later challenged to dismiss on another basis. The State quickly made a new presentation to the Grand Jury (2nd one) in which it claimed that the presentation was the same and that it merely omitted the information that had been challenged in the first presentation.

But the new Grand Jury transcript shows that the State made it's second presentation not like clean like new, but started off by telling the Grand Jury that they were presenting to "correct" the original indictment. So the State basically told the Grand Jury that I had already been indicted, implying that there was already sufficient evidence to indict me.

Can the State omit important details and slant everything around like this?

First, I tend to doubt that several witnesses all said they "wish they had glasses."

To clarify for me: Was the photograph that appeared in the newspapers the mug shot or was it another photograph taken of you at a different point in time? Did the newspaper article state or imply that you were the suspect arrested for the crime?

If I am understanding what you have said, the identification of you, if by the same witnesses who were unable to pick you out of a police photo-lineup, could be challenged as unreliable. Witnesses can rarely recall with any degree of accuracy what they saw.

If you have an attorney, your attorney should be handling all of this for you. I agree with Zigner.

 

[Needsknowledge]

First, I tend to doubt that several witnesses all said they "wish they had glasses."

To clarify for me: Was the photograph that appeared in the newspapers the mug shot or was it another photograph taken of you at a different point in time? Did the newspaper article state or imply that you were the suspect arrested for the crime?

If I am understanding what you have said, the identification of you, if by the same witnesses who were unable to pick you out of a police photo-lineup, could be challenged as unreliable. Witnesses can rarely recall with any degree of accuracy what they saw.

If you have an attorney, your attorney should be handling all of this for you. I agree with Zigner.

I too am sure that all the witnesses did not say, "wish they had glasses"
The news photo was not an ugly mugshot, but it was an "prison" photo (those are a little more groomed), and yes, the photo caption identified me by name and said "police suspect" for the crime. The article the photo was in also said that I had been arrested by police as a "person of interest".

 

[Needsknowledge]

If you don't trust your attorney, then find a new attorney. We will not second guess your attorney.

I wish I could "pick" an attorney, but I cannot afford to hire private and have no say as to who the Public Defender appoints to represent me.

I know that the basis of the witness identification WILL be challenged at trial, as will some of the other misrepresentations if the State tries to use them, but this whole second Grand Jury presentation is, in my opinion, even more fishy than the first and deserves to be challenged for dismissal like the first one was. But, that is just my opinion, so this is why I ask the opinions of others.

Was it proper for the State to tell the Grand Jury up-front that it is presenting just to "correct" a mistake, for example? Is there a guide in any cases that may give me an idea about what is proper and improper?

 

[tranquility]

The prosecutor (Actually, state's attorney in IL.) has near complete control over the presentation to a grand jury. It is said a state's attorney could get a bill of particulars/indictment against a ham sandwich. While the majority of states (not all) require the state's attorney to present exculpatory evidence, because of the inherent secrecy of the grand jury, there is no realistic remedy if they do not. Even if there were some leak of ALL evidence presented and that leak PROVED no known exculpatory evidence was presented, the burden would be high to prove that exculpatory evidence would prevent the jury from indicting a person. Let's face it, if you are the focus of a grand jury investigation, you might as well get used to the fact you are going to be indicted and should start planning your defense in court.

Internet search edit:
While old, a lot of grand jury law is also old. Don't rely on this for the law of the grand jury and prosecutor, but for their role and general guidelines.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6459&context=jclc

 

[quincy]

I wish I could "pick" an attorney, but I cannot afford to hire private and have no say as to who the Public Defender appoints to represent me.

I know that the basis of the witness identification WILL be challenged at trial, as will some of the other misrepresentations if the State tries to use them, but this whole second Grand Jury presentation is, in my opinion, even more fishy than the first and deserves to be challenged for dismissal like the first one was. But, that is just my opinion, so this is why I ask the opinions of others.

Was it proper for the State to tell the Grand Jury up-front that it is presenting just to "correct" a mistake, for example? Is there a guide in any cases that may give me an idea about what is proper and improper?

Following is an additional link, with select Illinois case law, to go along with the link tranquility provided.

But, again, you need to rely on your attorney for advice. Although it is fine to become more educated on the law, your attorney's opinion is the only one that should matter to you.

https://www.illinois.gov/osad/Publications/DigestbyChapter/CH 29 Indictments.pdf

 

[Needsknowledge]

Thank-you both for the links and materials to review. It gives me a start.

 

[quincy]

Thank-you both for the links and materials to review. It gives me a start.

We appreciate the thanks, Needsknowledge. Good luck.

 

[legalservice]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
In Illinois
The State's presentation to the Grand Jury has a lot of information omitted or taken out of context.

For example, that I was photographed when arrested and a photo line-up was drawn up based on that photo which was shown to several witnesses who said something to the effect at the time of "wish they had glasses". Then the State has the officer say that a few days later a photo of me appears in the newspapers and that these same witnesses then contact the police to say they recognized me as the suspect they saw based on that news photo. The officer testifies that the photo line-up and the news photo are substantially the same. The State does not tell the Grand Jury that each of these witnesses failed to recognize me from that initial police photo line-up on the day of the crime, and explain that the news photo they each later saw and based their recognition of me from identified me as the police suspect to the crime.

The State's presentation was later challenged to dismiss on another basis. The State quickly made a new presentation to the Grand Jury (2nd one) in which it claimed that the presentation was the same and that it merely omitted the information that had been challenged in the first presentation.

But the new Grand Jury transcript shows that the State made it's second presentation not like clean like new, but started off by telling the Grand Jury that they were presenting to "correct" the original indictment. So the State basically told the Grand Jury that I had already been indicted, implying that there was already sufficient evidence to indict me.

Can the State omit important details and slant everything around like this?

Poster -

The Grand Jury is one of the most abused systems of law since the inception of Courts written in biblical times. A Prosecutor, can indict ANYONE for ANYTHING. It's a one sided argument where it's held in "secrecy" and the defendant is never called to testify. Unless your a police officer indicted, usually the prosecutor will allow a cop to defend themselves at the Grand Jury. The prosecutor will not tell the defendant what time the grand jury will convene on your case. A lawyer however, will ask you not to testify since there is no cross examination for the defense attorney to ask questions.
The prosecutor can allow anything to enter the courtroom, including known "false" witnesses, false "documents", false "testimony". You get the point.
They can present ANYTHING and your not there to defend this. In Ohio, there is law that says the prosecutor doesn't even have to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. Did you hear that? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Now onto false testimony. Guess what, NOBODY is entitled to see the Grand Jury Transcripts!!! The biggest Gaffe in history. Someone wants to lie, guess what, you'll never know except the Grand Jury and the Prosecutor, your defense won't know about it, nor the defendant, and you can't cross examine a witness at trial since you don't know what was said/done at the Grand Jury.
Ever heard of the argument, a Prosecutor can indict a ham sandwitch? We're getting to that point soon....

 

[quincy]

I

In Ohio, there is law that says the prosecutor doesn't even have to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. ...


... Ever heard of the argument, a Prosecutor can indict a ham sandwitch? We're getting to that point soon....

Needsknowledge is in Illinois not Ohio, so how Ohio handles
Grand Juries has little relevance here.

If people read tranquility's post above, they will have heard the "ham sandwich" argument.