When Edna testifies, “I saw Steve shoot the clerk,” Steve’s lawyer is allowed to ask questions - not only about where she was when he saw it, how good her vantage point was… but also about her biases, and whether she has a motive to lie about Steve. The jury is in a position to hear the witness directly, and assess whether she’s lying or telling the truth.
When Carl testifies, “Edna told me she saw Steve shoot the clerk,” Carl may be being completely and utterly truthful… but Edna might have been lying, and the jury no way to assess her credibility. This is why, as Kimmy correctly points out, our constitutional guarantees about “confronting the witnesses against you” come into play – Steve can’t confront Edna.
Let’s assume the situation was as you describe.
First of all, the emergency responder told him not to go outside, police were on their way. He specifically said he was going outside to kill someone. That’s not proof of intent?
More importantly, I never said we should “lynch” Joe. But, in a world with better laws and impartial juries, he should have been charged with something. If there weren’t “Stand Your Ground” laws that remove a “duty to retreat”, how is his behavior defensible? My understanding is that no one was on his property before he exited the house. Even if they were, it was because they were running away from the scene of the crime. He was not in immediate danger, what need did he have to go out with a gun? You might say “to keep those people from getting away”, but in this particular situation, there was already an undercover policeman in front of his house. Maybe he didn’t know that. But he’s not a trained law enforcement officer. He shouldn’t have gone out there.
I know law and order types will say that the two people Joe Horn shot were a) burglars and b) illegal immigrants, so they got what they deserved, but I disagree, I don’t think being a burglar, or an illegal immigrant, or both, should be justification for killing someone. I haven’t noticed that we give the death penalty to illegal immigrants convicted of burglary.
P.S. I’ve never liked these Grand Jury secrecy laws. I think they are counterproductive. I knew the general principle, but I was thinking that in a case like this, they might have been published. I know I have seen grand jury testimony made public before. For example, in a case with wide notoriety like that of Joe Horn, without release of the grand jury testimony, what is a member of the general public going to think? They are going to think that you can shoot a guy running away, in the back, and it’s justified.
Grand jury proceedings are generally secret. It’s not a trial and the rules of evidence don’t apply. And the suspect doesn’t have a right to a defense or representation. So it’s considered improper to release that information to the public, especially if the grand jury decides not to indict.
A grand jury is not the kind of jury that is meant when using the term “jury nullification.”
There are a couple of cliches regarding grand juries. One is that “the grand jury is a creature of the prosecutor.” The other is that “if the prosecutor wants the grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, the grand jury will indict the ham sandwich.”
The idea is that without rules of evidence or any of the other constitutional protections – representation, defense, right to introduce evidence, an impartial judge – a grand jury is entirely in the hands of the prosecutor. If the grand jury chooses not to indict, it may be that the case was very, very weak, or it may be that the prosecutor didn’t try very hard to get an indictment.
What if Edna is dead, though? It seems to me that, in general, Carl should be able to testify as to what Edna said before she died, and the defense can challenge Carl’s credibility. Especially in a case where Steve also shot Edna.
Simulpost! I knew that as a general rule, but in a case like this, with all the media attention it got, I think it would have been good to make public the reasons why Joe Horn was not indicted, for the reasons stated in the post immediately preceding yours.
Actually, I’m going to be condemning the “Stand Your Ground” laws right now, because it has been explained by people supposed to be legal experts on the issue that Florida Stand Your Ground laws would make this a case very difficult to prosecute successfully, and so there is a good chance that the DA wouldn’t bother. I think this is the kind of case that should go to trial. The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow the subject, Zimmerman did anyway, as a result of this there was a confrontation and a young man died. Zimmerman’s foolish actions resulted in a death. The circumstances of the death are murky enough that there should be a trial.
Well, 911 always tells the public to not intervene. Doesn’t matter if the perp is out there with a chainsaw, cutting babies up for firewood and the police are two hours away. It’s what they are trained to say, no matter what.
Again, we don’t know they were running away. We don’t know that he wasn’t in immediate danger. We don’t know he shot them in the back. You are making these assumptions based upon one piece of evidence, a preliminary police report, as viewed through the eyes of (and edited for better news by) a biased media.
He went out there to protect his nextdoor neighbors house. Is that a good reason? Well, better than Zimmermans, anyway.
Why do you think Joe should have been charged? Based upon 15 minutes of evidence, filtered thru the media? Whereas the GJ heard about 40 hours and decided just the opposite? Don’t you think that since they got the full story and you got just a tiny bit of it, they had more info and could make a better, more informed decision? We are being manipulated by the media on this.
A Grand Jury can be a open public process. It’s very very rare. There are excellent reasons for GJ secrecy and one of those is that someone can be compelled to testify, he can’t “take the 5th”. It also protects witnesses who may be afraid to testify. A lot of witnesses get intimidated or even killed once the defendants know their testimony can be damaging.
Hell, I think Zimmermans story and the circumstances look very bad. Horn looks far better, he was confronting two dangerous felons in the very act of committing a felony. Having two perps like that running towards you can be very scary. Maybe he did shoot after they started to turn. Or maybe he shot, then they turned. We don’t know.
It’s against the law, at least at the Federal level.
“Rule 6(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) sets the size of a federal grand jury at no less than sixteen nor more than twenty-three people. Rule 6(e) imposes secrecy on grand jurors. That serves several functions — it protects the reputation of anyone who is investigated but not ultimately indicted; it encourages reluctant witnesses because their words won’t reach the targets of the investigation; it protects witnesses and evidence from tampering or undue influence; and it reduces the possibility that the targets of the investigation will flee before indictment.”
To say he was in immediate danger, you would have to show that the people were trying to break into his house. He put himself in danger by stepping out of the house. Are you suggesting a scenario where he wasn’t out of the house, or a scenario were the burglars were trying to gain entry to his house?
Nothing. An Eyewitness means a person can testify with any of the 5 senses, not limited to visual testimony.
There was a case I remember once where the rapist was called “stinky” or such. He had raped a bind woman, but she recognized his peculiar "smell’ when asked to ID him.
Felony criminal charges in the federal system must be handed down by a grand jury. But in state systems, there are situations in which a prosecutor can proceed without a grand jury indictment, by filing a “bill of information” or other type of instrument. I’m not sure where and under what circumstances such means are available.
When I do a google search on “release of grand jury testimony”, I get several hits with examples of things being published from grand jury testimony. I haven’t read far enough along to see if these were illegal releases or not. The main point I’m arguing that, if the law says that Grand Jury testimony should never be released, then there’s something wrong either with that law or else with the Grand Jury system as a whole.
No, what I am saying is that after he made the (completely legal) decision to leave his house and confront the felons, he may have been in danger. The fact that he may have been safe by staying in his house, but added to his rics by leaving, does not make what he did criminal.
I disagree. Remember that there are no constitutional protections in a grand jury. People can be compelled to testify. The only reason this is true is because of confidentiality. If you made grand jury proceedings public, you would essentially kill their utility. The grand jury is not where justice is done. It is merely where it is decided whether someone will be charged with a serious crime.
Quoting from the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure;
RULE 3.140. INDICTMENTS; INFORMATIONS
(a) Methods of Prosecution.
(1) Capital Crimes. An offense that may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment.
(2) Other Crimes. The prosecution of all other criminal offenses shall be as follows:
In circuit courts and county courts, prosecution shall be solely by indictment or information, except that prose-cution in county courts for violations of municipal ordinances and metropolitan county ordinances may be by affidavit or docket entries and prosecutions for misdemeanors, municipal ordinances, and county ordinances may be by notice to appear issued and served pursuant to rule 3.125. A grand jury may indict for any offense. When a grand jury returns an indictment for an offense not triable in the circuit court, the circuit judge shall either issue a summons returnable in the county court or shall bail the accused for trial in the county court, and the judge, or at the judge’s direction, the clerk of the circuit court, shall certify the indictment and file it in the records of the county court.