Secretly recording the gay roommate - an update - grand jury indictment

[Northern_Piper]

As a follow-up to this Pit thread: Secretly recording the gay roommate, a state grand jury has returned a 15 count indictment against the guy who recorded his roommate’s tryst:

Roommate indicted in Rutgers University suicide case

The roommate of the Rutgers University freshmen who killed himself after his sexual encounter with another man was broadcast online was indicted Wednesday on privacy and bias charges, the prosecutor of Middlesex County in New Jersey announced.

A grand jury indicted Dharun Ravi, 19, on 15 counts including invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, tampering with physical evidence, witness tampering, and hindering apprehension or prosecution.

[Agent_Foxtrot]

Let’s see how he feels about being recorded every day for the next five to ten.

[MLS]

Please remember that “indicted” does not equal “convicted.” It just means the prosecution has shown that it has enough evidence to warrant proceeding to actual prosecution.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@MLS

Please remember that “indicted” does not equal “convicted.” It just means the prosecution has shown that it has enough evidence to warrant proceeding to actual prosecution.

And also that grand juries will indict just about anything.

[Rachellelogram]

I don’t imagine every charge will stick. But the big ones will. Tampering–no question, didn’t they try to get rid of the evidence when they figured out the guy offed himself? Invasion of privacy–no question. I hope it gets charged as a hate crime.

[MLS]

@Eyebrows_0f_Doom

And also that grand juries will indict just about anything.

This is partly because prosecutors won’t waste the effort of bringing up something with insufficient evidence. I was on a GJ last year, and we indicted almost all the time. In a couple of cases we could tell that the prosecutor really didn’t want an indictment but for one reason or another couldn’t simply drop the charges. In exactly one case we returned a “no bill” when the prosecutor actually wanted an indictment.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@MLS

This is partly because prosecutors won’t waste the effort of bringing up something with insufficient evidence. I was on a GJ last year, and we indicted almost all the time. In a couple of cases we could tell that the prosecutor really didn’t want an indictment but for one reason or another couldn’t simply drop the charges. In exactly one case we returned a “no bill” when the prosecutor actually wanted an indictment.

Same with me. I was on a Grand Jury earlier this year and saw about 50-60 cases. Most of those included several charges. For only two charges did we return a No True Bill. (And one of those was a marijuana possession where it was obvious people didn’t want to indict simply because they didn’t think he did anything wrong.)