Outstanding post.
The only minor thing I’d add is that we typically refer to “non-transactional” immunity as “use immunity.”
Keep in mind you can assert that you’re unable to testify because it would violate your fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination in several different scenarios that aren’t criminal trials with defendants. For example in a civil case, you can invoke the 5th in a deposition or testimony, because if you testify about something that is a criminal offense that testimony can be used against you in a later criminal trial. You can also do so if you’re ever called before a congressional committee hearing (these hearings have subpoena power, and also the testimony is sworn under penalty of purjury.)
In fact, the fifth “can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.”
That being said, in a civil case, in certain states, the other side can use the fact that you’ve invoked the fifth against you. They can suggest that you are doing so for reasons damaging to your case (if you’re a defendant in the case), while in a criminal case the jury is specifically instructed that they may not infer guilt from the fact that a defendant uses their fifth amendment right to decline to testify.
You really have a problem with people don’t you septimus?
I have been following the reporting on ‘The Young Turks’ where Cenk Uygur tells that when he was in law school (anecdotal, or course) he was taught (when he spent time as a prosecutor) that if they want, the prosecutor can obtain any indictment (a ham sandwich was mentioned) just by the evidence they allow to be presented. Since grand jury proceedings are normally secret, I would think it would be difficult to prove, one way or another, whether the rules weren’t stretched to the benefit of the police officers.
Bob (IANAL, or i could offer more direct evidence).
As Cenk Uygur was not a prosecutor, he worked as an attorney for law firms and not as or for a district attorney or as a US attorney it would be highly unlikely that he ever saw a grand jury in action it is also unlikely that his professors did either.
That said the standard of evidence that a GJ is using is “probable cause” or the same level that is required to either arrest or obtain a search warrant. This is a very low bar and if a prosecutor is proposing charges they should be able to meet the standard with ease. If they cannot reliably obtain a true bill result they should be removed from office.
This does not indicate that a grand jury is useless or ineffective. Despite what popular culture and the media likes to portray the entire reason for a grand jury is to prevent the government from using the court system as a political tool.
The OPs case is a perfect example of this. The ONLY reason to move forward with a criminal homicide trial in this case was to placate an angry public who was looking to put a man on trial despite the reality that he would never have been convicted.
The role of the grand jury is to protect the people from abusive or malicious indictments of individuals no matter if it is the Judicial, Executive, or Legislative branches which is seeking an abusive or malicious indictment.
Unfortunately the secrecy that is in place to protect those whom are called to testify in front of a GJ also leads to wild speculation. The reality of the proceedings also makes for a poor plot device. The media and authors cannot attract readers/viewers with a reality that is riveting as the every day events in a laundromat. So they use the secrecy and creative licence to spice things up.
A “Grand Jury indictment” should be no more salacious than a search or arrest warrant which is part of the reason it is so frustrating to see the general public use it as some form of proxy with the same weight as a jury’s decision in a criminal trial.
To be clear, what happened is absolutely tragic and our policing polices need to change, but this is an example of a grand jury doing the right thing as it relates to our current laws.
I found where he tweeted this:
https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/537086555496923136
Either he never practiced criminal law at all or he was a horrid lawyer or he the post is meant to drive traffic to his news show.
With just my experience as a juror I have a reasonable concept of “Objectively Reasonable Standard” and the use of force.
This has to be pure click baiting.
Drop it or take it to The BBQ Pit.
This comment has no place in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
The post appears to be indicating that he interned with a prosecutor’s office in law school, which is very common. I’m not sure where you are getting that it is unlikely his professors ever saw a grand jury in action. It would be very surprising if at least a few of them hadn’t.
Thank you Really Not All That Bright. I was not quite sure how to answer the post but you did it really well, and this is what I meant to say.
Bob
The constitutional right to a grand jury only applies in federal cases. In state governments they tend to only be used in very high profile cases. Even in the state system a run of the mill prosecutor would not handle those cases. My claim is just due to that reality.
As an example, a state grand jury has not been called up in King County, here in Seattle since the early 1970s. This is not an exception and is and example why I stand by my above claim.
That’s nice, but King County has fuck all to do with anything. Uygur attended Columbia. New York has its own constitutional right to grand jury indictment for felony cases.
Does Columbia only higher professors that worked within the states legal system? Did he intern at the district level?
FYI, I found the origin of the quote, and a local NY resource to show both the origin of original quote and that that the original quote does not apply in that state.
http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/recent/hnygjw.htm
Even if it is still true it doesn’t matter, if you bring a case in front of a Grand Jury and cannot reliably get an indictment you are NOT DOING YOUR JOB. As all you have to meet is probable cause which is a similar standard as is required to even arrest someone.
Of course they don’t only hire professors that worked within the state’s legal system. Your contention was that “it would be highly unlikely that he ever saw a grand jury in action it is also unlikely that his professors did either.” He almost certainly had at least one professor who had worked in private criminal practice or for the state attorney or public defender.
An attorney in private criminal practice would never have seen a grand jury operate in almost all jurisdictions as they are not allowed in the room in most and the same is true of public defenders, within those roles. They have have been in the hall but would have never seen one operate.
Anyway, we are arguing about minutiae, this pundits is ignorant of the system or is trying to drive traffic which was my original point.
I can’t help but note that - unless I’ve missed it - despite being asked, you have failed to detail the damning evidence that was deliberately suppressed.
So again, what is this damning evidence that was deliberately suppressed?
IOW Cite?