You could "indict a ham sandwich"

[Moo Denver]

By Randall D. Eliason
Mr. Eliason is a

left-wing turd scribbler at Georgetown.

I'm not a lawyer. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the
majority of the Metropolitan’s readers are also not lawyers. And while
there are a few exceptions, I know most of my Facebook followers aren’t
lawyers.

And yet, there are many people who seem to be so sure of their
understanding about how a grand jury works, that they’re willing to take
any decision made at face value — as proof of innocence or guilt.

That’s not actually how a grand jury works. In a grand jury hearing, the
prosecution (usually only the prosecution) presents evidence in a relaxed
setting to the grand jury, who decide whether to issue an indictment ­­—
whether there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime. Since,
traditionally, the defense doesn’t get a say, it’s pretty easy to get a
grand jury to indict someone in most cases.

In fact, it’s so easy in most cases that a former New York state chief
judge, Sol Wachtler, famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a
grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”

On a federal level (different than the state level, like in Ferguson,
Missouri, where most cases are brought before judges for an indictment
rather then grand juries), in 2010 (the last year for which we have
statistics), grand juries returned just 11 out of 162,000 violent crime
cases without an indictment, according to the FBI’s Bureau of Justice
Statistics.

There is one exception, and we saw it frequently in 2014: when a police
officer is charged with a crime, a grand jury only rarely returns an
indictment.

We saw this in action when a grand jury failed to indict Ferguson police
officer Darren Wilson for the killing of unarmed black teenager Michael
Brown, even on a charge of involuntary manslaughter. We saw it in New
York, when a grand jury failed to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo in
the choking death of unarmed Eric Garner (an indictment was, however,
handed out for the man who videotaped Garner’s death, with about as much
difficulty as it would take to indict a ham sandwich).

According to research by Philip Stinson , an assistant professor of
criminal justice at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, only 41 officers
in the United States were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005
and 2011. Total numbers of officer-related shootings are unclear, as the
FBI’s report of 2,718 “justified homicides” by officers over the same
period is considered a low estimate, as police organizations aren’t
required to submit their records to this report.

So why the discrepancy? If it’s so easy to indict for violent crime, why
are so few officers indicted?

There’s a few theories. The first is that we’ve trained the public to
trust police officers. That trust can be necessary for those officers to
do their jobs, but it may be given too blindly: as the military
intelligence community put it when I was in the Air Force, “trust, but
verify.”

Since, in officer-involved shootings, the events are often the word of a
police officer carrying a public trust versus a victim, who are often busy
being dead and unable to defend themselves, grand juries may not give as
much credence to evidence against police officers than they do to ordinary
citizens.

Another possibility is that prosecutors, on whom much of the burden of
securing an indictment in a grand jury falls, are naturally reluctant to
push for the prosecution of the officers they have to work with, every
day, to enforce the law. This isn’t necessarily something that happens
consciously, but prosecutorial bias could easily be a factor, especially
if combined with juror bias.

Finally, a misunderstanding in the general public of the lower standards
of evidence needed to secure indictment, rather than the “beyond
reasonable doubt” required for a conviction, could result in confusion on
a jury — and certainly does in the court of public opinion.

Is there a way to fix this? Possibly, require a special prosecutor for all
grand jury investigations or indictment hearings involving a police
officer, to relieve prosecutors of the inherent conflict of interest in
attempting to indict their co-workers. Another would be to do away with
grand juries altogether, as a majority of the world has done, and bring
charges against officers to a full trial, where guilt or innocence can be
determined “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Until we fix the problems with indictment in this country, justice won’t
be done. Innocence, or guilt, is not determined in a grand jury.

https://www.mymetmedia.com/indict-ham-sandwich/

[Charlie Glock]

Post by Moo Denver

By Randall D. Eliason
Mr. Eliason is a

left-wing turd scribbler at Georgetown.
I'm not a lawyer. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the
majority of the Metropolitan’s readers are also not lawyers. And while
there are a few exceptions, I know most of my Facebook followers aren’t
lawyers.
And yet, there are many people who seem to be so sure of their
understanding about how a grand jury works, that they’re willing to take
any decision made at face value — as proof of innocence or guilt.
That’s not actually how a grand jury works. In a grand jury hearing, the
prosecution (usually only the prosecution) presents evidence in a relaxed
setting to the grand jury, who decide whether to issue an indictment ­­—
whether there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime. Since,
traditionally, the defense doesn’t get a say, it’s pretty easy to get a
grand jury to indict someone in most cases.
In fact, it’s so easy in most cases that a former New York state chief
judge, Sol Wachtler, famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a
grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”
On a federal level (different than the state level, like in Ferguson,
Missouri, where most cases are brought before judges for an indictment
rather then grand juries), in 2010 (the last year for which we have
statistics), grand juries returned just 11 out of 162,000 violent crime
cases without an indictment, according to the FBI’s Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
There is one exception, and we saw it frequently in 2014: when a police
officer is charged with a crime, a grand jury only rarely returns an
indictment.
We saw this in action when a grand jury failed to indict Ferguson police
officer Darren Wilson for the killing of unarmed black teenager Michael
Brown, even on a charge of involuntary manslaughter. We saw it in New
York, when a grand jury failed to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo in
the choking death of unarmed Eric Garner (an indictment was, however,
handed out for the man who videotaped Garner’s death, with about as much
difficulty as it would take to indict a ham sandwich).
According to research by Philip Stinson , an assistant professor of
criminal justice at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, only 41 officers
in the United States were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005
and 2011. Total numbers of officer-related shootings are unclear, as the
FBI’s report of 2,718 “justified homicides” by officers over the same
period is considered a low estimate, as police organizations aren’t
required to submit their records to this report.
So why the discrepancy? If it’s so easy to indict for violent crime, why
are so few officers indicted?
There’s a few theories. The first is that we’ve trained the public to
trust police officers. That trust can be necessary for those officers to
do their jobs, but it may be given too blindly: as the military
intelligence community put it when I was in the Air Force, “trust, but
verify.”
Since, in officer-involved shootings, the events are often the word of a
police officer carrying a public trust versus a victim, who are often busy
being dead and unable to defend themselves, grand juries may not give as
much credence to evidence against police officers than they do to ordinary
citizens.
Another possibility is that prosecutors, on whom much of the burden of
securing an indictment in a grand jury falls, are naturally reluctant to
push for the prosecution of the officers they have to work with, every
day, to enforce the law. This isn’t necessarily something that happens
consciously, but prosecutorial bias could easily be a factor, especially
if combined with juror bias.
Finally, a misunderstanding in the general public of the lower standards
of evidence needed to secure indictment, rather than the “beyond
reasonable doubt” required for a conviction, could result in confusion on
a jury — and certainly does in the court of public opinion.
Is there a way to fix this? Possibly, require a special prosecutor for all
grand jury investigations or indictment hearings involving a police
officer, to relieve prosecutors of the inherent conflict of interest in
attempting to indict their co-workers. Another would be to do away with
grand juries altogether, as a majority of the world has done, and bring
charges against officers to a full trial, where guilt or innocence can be
determined “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Until we fix the problems with indictment in this country, justice won’t
be done. Innocence, or guilt, is not determined in a grand jury.
https://www.mymetmedia.com/indict-ham-sandwich/

About 5 years ago I served a month on a grand jury and saw the process.
There was one case, where a man was riding his bicycle down the road and his girlfriend was riding
on the handlebars, no helmets.

A police cruiser stopped them and it turned out there was a warrant for the man's arrest on assault
charges. This guy was not a nice person.

So after the prosecutor presented the case, we got to deliberate to see if we reached a "True Bill"
which meant an indictment or "No True Bill", which meant no indictment.

I and another lady were the only 2 who voted "True Bill" the others said, the drug charge was valid
but the bicycle stop was not. I tried to explain to them that without the bicycle stop, the other
charge would be thrown out. They wouldn't listen.
Bottom line, the vote was no true bill on the bicycle violation but true bill on the drug charge.
so when the prosecutor came back in court she explained that since we voted no true bill on the
bicycle stop, the drug charge would be thrown out because of no probable cause.

This is the type of emotional, non logical people grand juries are typically comprised of.

[Bud Frawley]

Post by Charlie Glock

Post by Moo Denver

By Randall D. Eliason
Mr. Eliason is a

left-wing turd scribbler at Georgetown.
I'm not a lawyer. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the
majority of the Metropolitan’s readers are also not lawyers. And while
there are a few exceptions, I know most of my Facebook followers aren’t
lawyers.
And yet, there are many people who seem to be so sure of their
understanding about how a grand jury works, that they’re willing to take
any decision made at face value — as proof of innocence or guilt.
That’s not actually how a grand jury works. In a grand jury hearing, the
prosecution (usually only the prosecution) presents evidence in a relaxed
setting to the grand jury, who decide whether to issue an indictment ­­—
whether there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime. Since,
traditionally, the defense doesn’t get a say, it’s pretty easy to get a
grand jury to indict someone in most cases.
In fact, it’s so easy in most cases that a former New York state chief
judge, Sol Wachtler, famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a
grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”
On a federal level (different than the state level, like in Ferguson,
Missouri, where most cases are brought before judges for an indictment
rather then grand juries), in 2010 (the last year for which we have
statistics), grand juries returned just 11 out of 162,000 violent crime
cases without an indictment, according to the FBI’s Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
There is one exception, and we saw it frequently in 2014: when a police
officer is charged with a crime, a grand jury only rarely returns an
indictment.
We saw this in action when a grand jury failed to indict Ferguson police
officer Darren Wilson for the killing of unarmed black teenager Michael
Brown, even on a charge of involuntary manslaughter. We saw it in New
York, when a grand jury failed to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo in
the choking death of unarmed Eric Garner (an indictment was, however,
handed out for the man who videotaped Garner’s death, with about as much
difficulty as it would take to indict a ham sandwich).
According to research by Philip Stinson , an assistant professor of
criminal justice at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, only 41 officers
in the United States were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005
and 2011. Total numbers of officer-related shootings are unclear, as the
FBI’s report of 2,718 “justified homicides” by officers over the same
period is considered a low estimate, as police organizations aren’t
required to submit their records to this report.
So why the discrepancy? If it’s so easy to indict for violent crime, why
are so few officers indicted?
There’s a few theories. The first is that we’ve trained the public to
trust police officers. That trust can be necessary for those officers to
do their jobs, but it may be given too blindly: as the military
intelligence community put it when I was in the Air Force, “trust, but
verify.”
Since, in officer-involved shootings, the events are often the word of a
police officer carrying a public trust versus a victim, who are often busy
being dead and unable to defend themselves, grand juries may not give as
much credence to evidence against police officers than they do to ordinary
citizens.
Another possibility is that prosecutors, on whom much of the burden of
securing an indictment in a grand jury falls, are naturally reluctant to
push for the prosecution of the officers they have to work with, every
day, to enforce the law. This isn’t necessarily something that happens
consciously, but prosecutorial bias could easily be a factor, especially
if combined with juror bias.
Finally, a misunderstanding in the general public of the lower standards
of evidence needed to secure indictment, rather than the “beyond
reasonable doubt” required for a conviction, could result in confusion on
a jury — and certainly does in the court of public opinion.
Is there a way to fix this? Possibly, require a special prosecutor for all
grand jury investigations or indictment hearings involving a police
officer, to relieve prosecutors of the inherent conflict of interest in
attempting to indict their co-workers. Another would be to do away with
grand juries altogether, as a majority of the world has done, and bring
charges against officers to a full trial, where guilt or innocence can be
determined “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Until we fix the problems with indictment in this country, justice won’t
be done. Innocence, or guilt, is not determined in a grand jury.
https://www.mymetmedia.com/indict-ham-sandwich/

About 5 years ago I served a month on a grand jury and saw the process.
There was one case, where a man was riding his bicycle down the road and his girlfriend was riding
on the handlebars, no helmets.
A police cruiser stopped them and it turned out there was a warrant for the man's arrest on assault
charges. This guy was not a nice person.
So after the prosecutor presented the case, we got to deliberate to see if we reached a "True Bill"
which meant an indictment or "No True Bill", which meant no indictment.
I and another lady were the only 2 who voted "True Bill" the others said, the drug charge was valid
but the bicycle stop was not. I tried to explain to them that without the bicycle stop, the other
charge would be thrown out. They wouldn't listen.
Bottom line, the vote was no true bill on the bicycle violation but true bill on the drug charge.
so when the prosecutor came back in court she explained that since we voted no true bill on the
bicycle stop, the drug charge would be thrown out because of no probable cause.

That is *exactly* the right result.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Bud Frawley

Post by Charlie Glock
About 5 years ago I served a month on a grand jury and saw the process.
There was one case, where a man was riding his bicycle down the road and his girlfriend was riding
on the handlebars, no helmets.
A police cruiser stopped them and it turned out there was a warrant for the man's arrest on assault
charges. This guy was not a nice person.
So after the prosecutor presented the case, we got to deliberate to see if we reached a "True Bill"
which meant an indictment or "No True Bill", which meant no indictment.
I and another lady were the only 2 who voted "True Bill" the others said, the drug charge was valid
but the bicycle stop was not. I tried to explain to them that without the bicycle stop, the other
charge would be thrown out. They wouldn't listen.
Bottom line, the vote was no true bill on the bicycle violation but true bill on the drug charge.
so when the prosecutor came back in court she explained that since we voted no true bill on the
bicycle stop, the drug charge would be thrown out because of no probable cause.

That is *exactly* the right result.

Except that the traffic stop *was* legit.

Swill
--
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_inflation_rate

Inflation is already at Fed target.

It is below the long term historical average.

Unemployment remains low at under 4%.

Fed cuts have not pushed us into a recession.

Interest rates remain in historical low range.

The housing market is hot.

Manufacturing is hot.

"Comeback in Factory Jobs Appears to Be for Real"
<https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-09/comeback-in-factory-jobs-appears-to-be-for-real>

"Unpacking the Boom in U.S. Construction of Manufacturing Facilities"
<https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-the-boom-in-us-construction-of-manufacturing-facilities>

Is manufacturing growing in the US?

"U.S. manufacturing growth outpaces the rest of the world

"It was negative for nearly the entire range, reaching a minimum of -8% in late 2021
before increasing to become positive in September 2022. In November 2022 it was 0.26%.
American manufacturing growth started outpacing the rest of the world's growth at the end
of last year for the first time in recent memory.Mar 7, 2023"
<https://www.axios.com/2023/03/07/us-manufacturing-growth-outpaced-world>

GO RFK!

Send money!

https://www.kennedy24.com

[Bud Frawley]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Bud Frawley

Post by Charlie Glock
About 5 years ago I served a month on a grand jury and saw the process.
There was one case, where a man was riding his bicycle down the road and his girlfriend was riding
on the handlebars, no helmets.

Sounds kind of foolish, but probably not a crime, so stopping them was an
unlawful detention.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Bud Frawley

Post by Charlie Glock
A police cruiser stopped them and it turned out there was a warrant for the man's arrest on assault
charges. This guy was not a nice person.
So after the prosecutor presented the case, we got to deliberate to see if we reached a "True Bill"
which meant an indictment or "No True Bill", which meant no indictment.
I and another lady were the only 2 who voted "True Bill" the others said, the drug charge was valid
but the bicycle stop was not. I tried to explain to them that without the bicycle stop, the other
charge would be thrown out. They wouldn't listen.

Good. They were right and the hang-em-high fuckwit "Glock" was wrong.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Bud Frawley

Post by Charlie Glock
Bottom line, the vote was no true bill on the bicycle violation but true bill on the drug charge.
so when the prosecutor came back in court she explained that since we voted no true bill on the
bicycle stop, the drug charge would be thrown out because of no probable cause.

That is *exactly* the right result.

Except that the traffic stop *was* legit.

Unless they were violating some law by not wearing helmets, the bicycle stop was
*not* legitimate. The cop had no reasonable suspicion they were involved in a
crime that had occurred, was occurring or was about to occur, so the detention
was illegal. Because the detention was illegal, anything resulting from it was
illegal, and they had no probable cause to arrest.

The cops cannot just stop people because they look "suspicious" or the cops
don't like the way they're riding a bicycle or they think the person has a bad
attitude. This is the whole problem with the right-wing yahoos who want cops to
try to nab "illegals." The cops can't stop someone because they think he might
be an "illegal" and demand to see the person's papers. In order to detain a
person *at all*, the cops have to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is
connected to a crime that has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur, and
walking down the street while Hispanic or Asian is not a crime, so the cops
can't detain someone. And of course, if an alien *is* unlawfully present in the
country, that is a civil matter, not criminal, and the local cops have no
jurisdiction. The unlawfully present alien may or may not have *entered* the
country illegally — it usually is a case of overstaying a visa, *not* illegal
entry — and the cop has no way of knowing.