• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

Thermal said:
"Ironclad"? From what little we know about the actual evidence, the prosecutors are outright lying (claimed Garcia didn't disclose that he was coming from Texas when it is right at the very beginning of the police report that he said so).

When you know a prosecutor is lying to your face, in black and white right in front of you, 'ironclad evidence' shouldn't be a phrase that springs to mind.
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
How would the Grand Jury know the prosecutor was lying to their faces?

And if they did know, why did they approve the indictment?

Your speculation makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I Am The Scum said:
When he said, "When you know a prosecutor is lying to your face," he was referencing your face, Hercules.
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
Why exactly should I know that the prosecutor is lying to my face?
Click to expand...

He (the person you are addressing) assumed, apparently incorrectly, that you were capable of following the conversation, of realizing that the police report contradicted the prosecutor's claim, and of understanding that said contradiction implies the prosecutor was either lying or hopelessly incompetent.
 
Hercules56 said:
Why exactly should I know that the prosecutor is lying to my face?
Click to expand...
I'm in too much of a rush to find the facepalm icon this morning, but you don't have to know! The grand jury can't be expected to know, and whether you should before speaking or not we will leave unsaid, but the very point of all this is that you need not know! What you should know is that because neither you nor the grand jury is obligated to know anything, the evidence is inherently not ironclad! The grand jury determines whether enough evidence is present to make a trial worthwhile. It does not evaluate the evidence or the integrity of the prosecution. The grand jury is like a gun. You don't need to know whether it's loaded, but you have no excuse if you presume it is not.
 
bruto said:
I'm in too much of a rush to find the facepalm icon this morning, but you don't have to know! The grand jury can't be expected to know, and whether you should before speaking or not we will leave unsaid, but the very point of all this is that you need not know! What you should know is that because neither you nor the grand jury is obligated to know anything, the evidence is inherently not ironclad! The grand jury determines whether enough evidence is present to make a trial worthwhile. It does not evaluate the evidence or the integrity of the prosecution. The grand jury is like a gun. You don't need to know whether it's loaded, but you have no excuse if you presume it is not.
Click to expand...
Kool.
 
Hercules56 said:
Kool.
Click to expand...
bruto said:
I'm in too much of a rush to find the facepalm icon this morning, but you don't have to know! The grand jury can't be expected to know, and whether you should before speaking or not we will leave unsaid, but the very point of all this is that you need not know! What you should know is that because neither you nor the grand jury is obligated to know anything, the evidence is inherently not ironclad! The grand jury determines whether enough evidence is present to make a trial worthwhile. It does not evaluate the evidence or the integrity of the prosecution. The grand jury is like a gun. You don't need to know whether it's loaded, but you have no excuse if you presume it is not.
Click to expand...
An indictment is not evidence of guilt.
 
Hercules56 said:
The indictment said he was transporting drugs. The Grand Jury agreed, and charged him with transporting drugs for illegal purposes.
Click to expand...

You’ve been provided multiple links describing how grand juries work and you clearly did not read them. Grand juries do not
Hercules56 said:
It is based on evidence.
Click to expand...

Evidence that isn’t validated or subject to challenge, as you just learned about this case.
 
johnny karate said:
You’ve been provided multiple links describing how grand juries work and you clearly did not read them. Grand juries do not


Evidence that isn’t validated or subject to challenge, as you just learned about this case.
Click to expand...
Garcia was arraigned today. Did his lawyer contest any of the evidence? He had the right to

And since you think all of the evidence is obvious BS, the lawyer should have contested all of it and had the charges thrown out.

Did he?
 
Hercules56 said:
Garcia was arraigned today. Did his lawyer contest any of the evidence? He had the right to

And since you think all of the evidence is obvious BS, the lawyer should have contested all of it and had the charges thrown out.

Did he?
Click to expand...
That is not what an arraignment is. At an arraignment hearing the judge will put the charges on the record, they will make sure the defendant understands those charges, they will inform the defendant of their rights, the defendant will be asked how they plead to those charges, that plea will be entered into the record. Bail may also be addressed as can the setting of other dates as due process dictates. No evidence is presented nor argued at an arraignment hearing.
 
I'm sure Herc is just believing it because Herc has a desire, a need, to believe that the MAGA Trump regime is not as corrupt and authoritarian as they are. This is the hill he wants to die on, since other Trump Regime actions were found to be illegal.

Remember when he thought that the NJ Mayor was absolutely guilty of trespassing? He still believes it, even though the judge tossed out the case because it was without merit and the judge admonished the prosecutors for an obvious, political action.
 
Hercules56 said:
Garcia was arraigned today. Did his lawyer contest any of the evidence? He had the right to

And since you think all of the evidence is obvious BS, the lawyer should have contested all of it and had the charges thrown out.

Did he?
Click to expand...
That's okay. Joe Pesci's character in "My Cousin Vinny" didn't understand what an arraignment is for, either.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I'm sure Herc is just believing it because Herc has a desire, a need, to believe that the MAGA Trump regime is not as corrupt and authoritarian as they are. This is the hill he wants to die on, since other Trump Regime actions were found to be illegal.

Remember when he thought that the NJ Mayor was absolutely guilty of trespassing? He still believes it, even though the judge tossed out the case because it was without merit and the judge admonished the prosecutors for an obvious, political action.
Click to expand...

Here's having the time of his life, the man with no name antagonising MAGAs, on the odd occasion they post, and The Libs the rest of the time. Don't worry about Herc, he's having a ball!
 
Darat said:
That is not what an arraignment is. At an arraignment hearing the judge will put the charges on the record, they will make sure the defendant understands those charges, they will inform the defendant of their rights, the defendant will be asked how they plead to those charges, that plea will be entered into the record. Bail may also be addressed as can the setting of other dates as due process dictates. No evidence is presented nor argued at an arraignment hearing.
Click to expand...
Not entirely. Probable cause is also affirmed during an arraignment. The bar is pretty low. But I have seen many a case where cases have been dismissed because the prosecution couldn't establish satisfactory PC. I got a case against me thrown out because I showed that the officer lied on the charges with a camera that recorded the stop. But generally, you're right. The judge didn't have to watch the video I came with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom