Member
| I once presented what I considered to be a winnable murder charge to another grand jury after only 8 voted in favor of indictment. That turned out to be a wasted effort. Maybe you can juice up your presentation in some way and try what I did, but the argument on the other side is that if you cannot convince even a plurality of the grand jurors (who are usually pretty state-oriented) how can you expect to get a unanimous petit jury? I also think you should disclose what you are doing to the new grand jury. |
| | |
Member
| quote: Originally posted by Helwig76:
Recently presented case to Grand Jury where there were,in my opinion, members with "minds made up" as to case and facts. As you might expect, small town, political/contraversal type event-criminal act. Result was "no bill" on case where facts of criminality were clear. How do others handle this? Fully understand "will of the people" etc b but feel as though should have done some type of inquiry although I know there is no "voire dire" on case by case basis. Surely this is not a novel question and I'd be grateful for coments of other small town/small county prosecutors who've faced this situation. Many thanks for a any and all comments
Thanks for comments. First lesson learned was not to present such case to anything less than full Grand Jury. This Grand Jury had only 9 present at meeting. There was no room for error! Next two members had personal knowledge and "grudges" against victim. There was some "economic interest" that two members had against the victim. Such is my quandry as to if there is any way to "purge" from sitting Grand Jury, those who are predisposed, have personal pecuniary interest involved in presented case. Can the DA ask if there is any one with personal interest or predisposition? Doubt it but any further comments or suggestion will be welcomed. |
| | | Posts: 22 | Location: Plains, Texas, USA | Registered: March 07, 2011 | 
IP
|
|
