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)