Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 7/1/84; site amd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!amd!eager
From: eager@amd.UUCP (Mike Eager)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Criminal Prosecution
Message-ID: <194@amd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Aug-84 16:16:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: amd.194
Posted: Tue Aug 14 16:16:52 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Aug-84 01:41:08 EDT
References: <1238@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Organization: AMD, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 20

In some states (I don't know if CA is one) they have the "grand jury" empowered
to bring inditements against individuals, as well as the DA.  This is supposed
to be a "check" against the DA not performing or selectively enforcing laws.

My impression is that it does not serve this purpose.  It seems to be a 
kangaroo court in many ways.  Lawyers are not permitted to represent a client
at a grand jury -- after all, nobody has been charged.  A witness may be held
in jail for failure to answer questions for the duration the grand jury is
empanneled.  Additionally, the only person who is allowed to present to the
jury is the DA, and there is no rebuttal of the evidence presented.  The only
thing the grand jury can do is return an inditement or not.   It is not a "tryer
of fact" and cannot determine guilt or innocence.  But the DA can (and often
does) publicize the names of the persons who are called before the grand jury, 
and the offenses which the person is suspected of.  And this is not slander.

Sounds more like an inquisition!!

-- Mike Eager	(amd!eager)