Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
I respect your opinion, but wouldn't that damage some legitimate criminal investigations?Charles L. Cotton wrote:I would like to see Texas law changed such that "jeopardy attaches" at the Grand Jury stage, so that a no-bill from a GJ would mean that it could not be presented to another GJ at a later date.
Yes it would and that's the argument against my position. If strong or conclusive evidence is obtained later, but before the statute of limitations has expired, then a guilty person will escape justice.seamusTX wrote:I respect your opinion, but wouldn't that damage some legitimate criminal investigations?Charles L. Cotton wrote:I would like to see Texas law changed such that "jeopardy attaches" at the Grand Jury stage, so that a no-bill from a GJ would mean that it could not be presented to another GJ at a later date.
For example, with organized crime investigations, it's not unusual for the DA to get a no-bill, then acquire more evidence and later get a true bill from another grand jury (grand juries sit for a limited time).
- Jim
And I'd suspect (from my very un-scientific review of cold-case file TV showsseamusTX wrote:Charles, the defense attorney or suspect will have an opposite point of view from a crime victim or the victim's relatives. Many cold cases have been solved with improved DNA testing. The victims would not be thrilled if told that the criminal was beyond prosecution.
- Jim
) that in many of those cases, it's the new evidence that leads a DA to try and indict the suspect in the first place, or often enough, helps the detectives finally figure out who committed the crime. I agree with Charles....If you don't have enough evidence to convict someone, you shouldn't be trying to indict them until you get the evidence that you need to convict them.That's sometimes true, but sometimes the criminal was a suspect, and sufficient evidence could not be presented at the time of the crime.Xander wrote:And I'd suspect (from my very un-scientific review of cold-case file TV shows) that in many of those cases, it's the new evidence that leads a DA to try and indict the suspect in the first place, or often enough, helps the detectives finally figure out who committed the crime.
That's certainly true, and it's tough to know where to draw the lines to find the best compromise for what can only be an imperfect system. As it stands, it could be better or it could be much, much worse. At least we all have that to be thankful for.seamusTX wrote: I think it's important to maintain perspective. Many of us imagine ourselves being wrongly accused of an offense, but there are real criminals out there who should be brought to justice (I'm talking about rapists and murderers, not people caught with a joint).
- Jim
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yes it would and that's the argument against my position. If strong or conclusive evidence is obtained later, but before the statute of limitations has expired, then a guilty person will escape justice.seamusTX wrote:I respect your opinion, but wouldn't that damage some legitimate criminal investigations?Charles L. Cotton wrote:I would like to see Texas law changed such that "jeopardy attaches" at the Grand Jury stage, so that a no-bill from a GJ would mean that it could not be presented to another GJ at a later date.
For example, with organized crime investigations, it's not unusual for the DA to get a no-bill, then acquire more evidence and later get a true bill from another grand jury (grand juries sit for a limited time).
- Jim
My response comes in two parts. If the DA doesn't have enough evidence to be sure he's going to get an indictment, then don't take to the GJ. Secondly, the vast majority of the time a case is taken before a GJ twice, it's not because of newly found evidence, it’s because the case is very weak and/or politically motivated. The Travis County Sastrup (sp?) case is a great example. The “beyond a reasonable doubt� standard has nothing to do with Grand Juries. However, if a GJ determines there is insufficient evidence to believe a crime has been committed and no-bills someone, and another GJ indicts a person on the same evidence, it seems to me there is “reasonable doubt� as a matter of law.
I have no statistics or studies to back this up, but I suspect it is far more likely that an innocent person will be the victim of an overzealous prosecutor or second GJ, than a guilty person going fee in spite of later found evidence. No person who has been no-billed by a GJ should have to live their lives in fear wondering if a change of DA's, or a change of mind of the current DA, will resurrect the case.
Chas.
The question is, who gets to decide if it is justified? One man or a jury?ScubaSigGuy wrote:Police officers in justified shootings being brought before a GJ just so the DA can be justified in his actions before a subsection of his constituency is the first major fault that comes to mind.
It could almost be called the Tom DeLay factor, or Ronnie Earle-itis maybe???Charles L. Cotton wrote:However, if a GJ determines there is insufficient evidence to believe a crime has been committed and no-bills someone, and another GJ indicts a person on the same evidence, it seems to me there is “reasonable doubt� as a matter of law.
I have no statistics or studies to back this up, but I suspect it is far more likely that an innocent person will be the victim of an overzealous prosecutor or second GJ, than a guilty person going fee in spite of later found evidence. No person who has been no-billed by a GJ should have to live their lives in fear wondering if a change of DA's, or a change of mind of the current DA, will resurrect the case.
Chas.
