I imagine for the motive we’ve been discussing here: public perception. In effect, the prosecutor is saying to the electorate, “Look, I did not reach this decision alone. Seven members of the community looked at all the evidence that I had, both that which favored prosecution and that which favored dismissal. And your fellow citizens agreed that there was no good reason to prosecute.”
Very seldom. It’s quite rare. Keeping in mind that grand jury rules differ between states (for example, in Virginia the size of the grand jury does not exceed 7; in the federal system it’s 23 and I have no idea what the Ohio number might be) the usual grand jury docilely follows the prosecutor’s lead. A grand jury that does not is sometimes called a “runaway.”
Because the standard the grand jury needs to reach to indict is only “probable cause.” This is a very low standard compared to the petit jury’s standard for conviction of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In my view, a grand jury that sees the same kind of exculpatory evidence that the petit jury would certainly see at trial, and can’t even agree that probable cause exists, is not looking at a case that will lead to a conviction.
In my view, it’s ethically wrong for a prosecutor to proceed to trial when he knows, or is reasonably certain, that he cannot obtain a conviction – basically, he’d be using the trial itself as a kind of punishment. A prosecutor concerned about the weakness of his case does not act wrongly by letting the grand jury see the same evidence that the petit jury would also see.
Really? That’s what you would like to know? Because in your previous post #30, you criticized Bricker’s response to you as unresponsive to your other question from post #26. That question was, “What about a prosecutor that soft-pedals a case to mollify the police he has to work with and the “Tough On Crime” voters he panders to?”
So what about them? Bricker gave you an answer - they are free to act in many ways under the auspices of prosecutorial discretion. But that wasn’t good enough - you wanted to know if that was ethically right - you even asked about it. I know, it’s hard to keep track with the ratio of statements to questions you pose.
Determining if something is ethically right is obviously a judgment call, so why you would phrase this type of statement in the form of a question while simultaneously implying you personally don’t believe it to be ethically right, leaving yourself the out of not making an actual statement, I leave as an exercise to the reader.
But now you’ve shifted - now the question is, if the prosecution goes to these lengths to find evidence exonerating the people the police bring in, or is it just the police(and other government officials) that get this kind of treatment? Of course, you’ve not stated what “these lengths” are, nor have you established that police and government officials get this kind of treatment as a matter of course beyond whatever treatment these particular officers received. Is that question begging, I’m not sure. In any event, Martin Hyde provided an example in post #17 of similar actions in a non-police, non-government official instance so your pseudo question is answered/rebutted.
Is it possible for a prosecutor to present a weak case for prosecution and a strong case for dismissal, or does he just present all the evidence available in order without comment?
Actually, it’s as if you didn’t read the specific post I was responding to, which certainly implied(but did not outright say) that both sides would be given equal representation, sort of like “We Report-You Decide”.
Well, this is a difficult question to meaningfully answer.
One answer is: any presentation done by human beings will have a rhetorical flavor to it. In other words, even the tone of voice used when asking a question can shape the perception of the listener. So in that sense, the prosecutor does not present evidence without comment – his every intonation is a comment of some type.
As DrDeth correctly observes, he cannot lie or deceive. He cannot present testimony he knows to be false. BUt he can decide what kind, and how much, evidence to present.
Well, does the House Impeach or just Indict? The accusation is step one in the process, and the few times it has been used, the office holder stepped down voluntarily almost every time.
Investigating allegations of a public official’s corrupt or willful misconduct in office, and when warranted, filing an “accusation” against that official to remove him or her from office. The accusation process is considered to be “quasi-criminal” in nature.*
*§ 919(c) of the Penal Code requires the grand jury to inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county. Where misconduct is found, the grand jury may file an accusation leading to a trial. If the official is convicted, the person is thereby removed from office. Very few of these accusations are filed. Frequently, if there is misconduct in office, it is of a criminal nature, and an indictment rather than an accusation would be issued. It is also possible that an official would resign rather than face an accusation. *
*Sections 3060-3075 of the California Government Code provide that a Grand Jury can present an
accusation against any officer of a district, county, or city for willful or corrupt misconduct. *
In other words, the grand jury cannot remove a public official from office. That power is reserved to the court.
He can put on whatever evidence he likes. But we are again walking the line between what is in the prosecutor’s power and what is ethical (and I should note that there are both large E ethics that can get an attorney disbarred and small E ethics that are basically just moral imperatives at issue).