“A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.”
The prosecutor, very much, can influence a grand jury’s decision on whether to indict.
Comment on No criminal charges over British woman shot in US
curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours agoThat would be negligence charges, yes, which is what went to the grand jury. The grand jury, for the record here, is a bunch of randomly selected people - not the cops, or a prosecutor, or anything like that. Its a jury. And what this jury decides is not guilt, but whether or not there is enough evidence that supports the charges to bring it to a trial.
And that grand jury decided there was not.
I’m not aware of (and was unable to find) any specifics around what actually happened, so there may be a very good reason why this was the case.
I’m not defending the decision here, just explaining the situation. It was investigated, the police brought someone and evidence to a prosecutor, a prosecutor brought it to court, and a jury decided the charges didn’t fit the evidence to bring forward to a criminal trial. That is all we really know.
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 10 hours ago
curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
What part of my comment said otherwise?
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 10 hours ago
The grand jury, for the record here, is a bunch of randomly selected people - not the cops, or a prosecutor, or anything like that. Its a jury. And what this jury decides is not guilt, but whether or not there is enough evidence that supports the charges to bring it to a trial.
No part explicitly but this whole paragraph ignores the fact that the prosecutor presents their case and influences the juries opinion. No defense or alternative argument is made.
The expression “a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich” is a nod to the fact that, often, a grand jury votes in the direction the prosecutor wants them to.
curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 hours ago
Yes, a prosecutor presents evidence to convince a jury to go to trial. They have to influence the jury to agree.
Defense’s part comes at the trial.
The expression “a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich” is a nod to the fact that, often, a grand jury votes in the direction the prosecutor wants them to.
Because they usually bring sufficient evidence, and the jury is only deciding if there is sufficient evidence to move forward. This doesnt decide guilt.
There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to the US “justice” system. Grand jury decisions aren’t remotely the problematic part.
RebekahWSD@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
All I know about grand jury was my sibling was on it, a cop tried to convince them that having a machete in the car should be an extra crime (carrying a weapon, maybe) and they were all like “no bro you absolutely need a machete here occasionally, some of us garden and stuff” and the cop seemed shocked they didn’t just nod along and do what he said.
curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
Yep, thats how its supposed to work.
Which is why there may be a perfectly reasonable issue as to why it didnt go any further.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Or a batshit one. It could just as easily be something like “well of course you need a couch gun. What if someone breaks in while you’re watching TV? Child proof safes take too long to open”
I hate that I’ve been places I can see this happening. And they’d all call themselves responsible gun owners because they tell their kid where the gun is and not to touch it
prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
We should speculate for sure