What's the purpose of a 'Grand Jury'?

[charlie neville]

What is the name of your state? Maine

To determine probable cause? I was arrested for stalking based on a statement given by the supposed victim a while back and subsequently found not guilty at a jury trial after ten minutes deliberation. Would seem to me, based on the quick not guilty verdict, there was not probable cause to arrest me in the first place. What am I missing here?

charlie

 

[stephenk]

being found not guilty has nothing to do with having probable cause to arrest you or charge you with a crime.

not guilty only means the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof to overcome reasonable doubt. You have not been found "innocent", you have only been found "not guilty".

 

[illusory100]

innocence
['i-ne-sens]

: freedom from fault or guilt under the law: as

a: the state of not being guilty of a particular crime or offense
(compare guilt)

b: the state of not being guilty of an act that constitutes a ground for divorce

c: ignorance on the part of a party to a transaction of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence to make inquiries




Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

 

[stephenk]

not guilty

1: a plea by a criminal defendant who intends to contest the charges
(compare guilty nolo contendere)
Note: Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, if a defendant refuses to plead or if the defendant is a corporation that fails to appear the court must enter a plea of not guilty on the defendant's behalf.

2: a verdict rendered by a jury acquitting a criminal defendant upon finding that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.

The person can still be found liable for stalking in a civil action where the burden of proof is lower than a criminal action. O.J. Simpson is a prime example. Not guilty of murder in criminal action but found liable for the deaths in a civil wrongful death action.

The court has the option (used rarely) to make a ruling that the defendant is factually innocent of the charges.

 

[charlie neville]

A 'not guilty' verdict is a determination...

...of innocence by default. If one is presumed innocent until one is proven guilty, then a not guilty verdict is a determination one is innocent of the crime. A lawyer you may be stephenk...a logician you're not!

charlie

 

[stephenk]

if you can show me one cite of your definition that "not guilty is innocence by default", then I will agree with you. But I know you cant back up your definition because your definition is an emotional one and not a legal definition.

You havent explained O.J.'s case which is as legal as you can get.

 

[charlie neville]

Are you 'really' an attorney...

...stephenk? That you might be is truely frightening. You say, "But I know you cant back up your definition because your definition is an emotional one and not a legal definition."

First of all, it's not a definition at all, let alone based in emotion. It's a logical conclusion based on:
If one is innocent until proven guilty,
and one is found not guilty at trial,
the conclusion can be drawn that one is innocent.

Your reference to O. J. Simpson in this is simply absurd.

 

[stephenk]

then if oj is innocent as you say, how was he found liable for the death of nicole simpson and ron goldman in a civil court? under your definition, oj should not have even been sued for the wrongful deaths because he was "innocent" of murder.

and oj's case was not unusual. many people who are found not guilty in criminal court can be found liable for the same acts in a civil court. it only depends on the burden of proof.

the original post said he was found not guilty of stalking in a criminal court. There is no law or statute or case holding that would prevent the "victim" from suing the poster in a civil court for damages or obtaining a restraining order under the same facts and winning and getting a ruling from the civil court that the poster was stalking the victim.

 

[charlie neville]

Jesus, what's with this OJ obsession you have stephen

Yup, your profile page says you're an attorney, though I can't imagine that's true, even in Southern California.

Christ, the judges and opposing attorneys must have fun with you.

This is getting to the point where I feel I'm in a game of wits with an unarmed individual. So, unless you get back on topic I'll deal myself out of this silliness.

charlie

 

[stephenk]

just like a philosophy major. does not deal with reality. i give you facts that disprove your position but all you do is attack the messenger and spout baseless theories.

 

[lrslrs]

I don't know about other states,

but the following is verbatim from the New Jersey statutes:

2C:1-13. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt; affirmative defenses; burden of proving fact when not an element of an offense
a. No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of such offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof, the innocence of the defendant is assumed.

 

[stephenk]

California penal code:

851.8. (a) In any case where a person has been arrested and no
accusatory pleading has been filed, the person arrested may petition
the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense to
destroy its records of the arrest. A copy of such petition shall be
served upon the district attorney of the county having jurisdiction
over the offense. The law enforcement agency having jurisdiction
over the offense, upon a determination that the person arrested is
factually innocent, shall, with the concurrence of the district
attorney, seal its arrest records, and the petition for relief under
this section for three years from the date of the arrest and
thereafter destroy its arrest records and the petition. The law
enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense shall notify
the Department of Justice, and any law enforcement agency which
arrested the petitioner or participated in the arrest of the
petitioner for an offense for which the petitioner has been found
factually innocent under this subdivision, of the sealing of the
arrest records and the reason therefor. The Department of Justice
and any law enforcement agency so notified shall forthwith seal their
records of the arrest and the notice of sealing for three years from
the date of the arrest, and thereafter destroy their records of the
arrest and the notice of sealing. The law enforcement agency having
jurisdiction over the offense and the Department of Justice shall
request the destruction of any records of the arrest which they have
given to any local, state, or federal agency or to any other person
or entity. Each such agency, person, or entity within the State of
California receiving such a request shall destroy its records of the
arrest and such request, unless otherwise provided in this section.
(b) If, after receipt by both the law enforcement agency and the
district attorney of a petition for relief under subdivision (a), the
law enforcement agency and district attorney do not respond to the
petition by accepting or denying such petition within 60 days after
the running of the relevant statute of limitations or within 60 days
after receipt of the petition in cases where the statute of
limitations has previously lapsed, then the petition shall be deemed
to be denied. In any case where the petition of an arrestee to the
law enforcement agency to have an arrest record destroyed is denied,
petition may be made to the municipal court or the superior court in
a county in which there is no municipal court which would have had
territorial jurisdiction over the matter. A copy of such petition
shall be served on the district attorney of the county having
jurisdiction over the offense at least 10 days prior to the hearing
thereon. The district attorney may present evidence to the court at
such hearing. Notwithstanding Section 1538.5 or 1539, any judicial
determination of factual innocence made pursuant to this section may
be heard and determined upon declarations, affidavits, police
reports, or any other evidence submitted by the parties which is
material, relevant and reliable. A finding of factual innocence and
an order for the sealing and destruction of records pursuant to this
section shall not be made unless the court finds that no reasonable
cause exists to believe that the arrestee committed the offense for
which the arrest was made. In any court hearing to determine the
factual innocence of a party, the initial burden of proof shall rest
with the petitioner to show that no reasonable cause exists to
believe that the arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest
was made. If the court finds that this showing of no reasonable
cause has been made by the petitioner, then the burden of proof shall
shift to the respondent to show that a reasonable cause exists to
believe that the petitioner committed the offense for which the
arrest was made. If the court finds the arrestee to be factually
innocent of the charges for which the arrest was made, then the court
shall order the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the
offense, the Department of Justice, and any law enforcement agency
which arrested the petitioner or participated in the arrest of the
petitioner for an offense for which the petitioner has been found
factually innocent under this section to seal their records of the
arrest and the court order to seal and destroy such records, for
three years from the date of the arrest and thereafter to destroy
their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy
such records. The court shall also order the law enforcement agency
having jurisdiction over the offense and the Department of Justice to
request the destruction of any records of the arrest which they have
given to any local, state, or federal agency, person or entity.
Each state or local agency, person or entity within the State of
California receiving such a request shall destroy its records of the
arrest and the request to destroy such records, unless otherwise
provided in this section. The court shall give to the petitioner a
copy of any court order concerning the destruction of the arrest
records.
(c) In any case where a person has been arrested, and an
accusatory pleading has been filed, but where no conviction has
occurred, the defendant may, at any time after dismissal of the
action, petition the court which dismissed the action for a finding
that the defendant is factually innocent of the charges for which the arrest was made. A copy of such petition shall be served on the district attorney of the county in which the accusatory pleading was filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing on the petitioner's factual innocence. The district attorney may present evidence to the court at such hearing. Such hearing shall be conducted as provided in subdivision (b). If the court finds the petitioner to be factually innocent of the charges for which the arrest was made, then the court shall grant the relief as provided in subdivision (b).
(d) In any case where a person has been arrested and an accusatory
pleading has been filed, but where no conviction has occurred, the
court may, with the concurrence of the district attorney, grant the
relief provided in subdivision (b) at the time of the dismissal of
the accusatory pleading.
(e) Whenever any person is acquitted of a charge and it appears to
the judge presiding at the trial wherein such acquittal occurred
that the defendant was factually innocent of such charge, the judge
may grant the relief provided in subdivision (b).

 

[illusory100]

the oj example is a perfect example:

he was found innocent of murder (criminal charge) and

found guilty of wrongful death (civil charge).

so, whats the confusion?

 

[stephenk]

he was only found "not guilty". A finding of factual innocence is a completely separate hearing after an arrest and no charges or an arrest, charges and not guilty finding.

if he was found "factually innocent", then there could have been no wrongful death verdict in the civil case.