cicerone imposter wrote:Under California law, all county and city government employees are required to cooperate with the Grand Jury. We had access to all county and stae government employees - including County Supervisors, Mayors, council members, and department heads and staff. .
My point, c.i., is you didn't hear witness called by the defendant, or hear any evidence presented by them, or hear any argument from them. It is a one-sided affair ... not a trial.
Yes we did; when we investigated department issues, we asked the supervisors what their policy was for doing such and such.
Noone said it WAS a trial.
But the fact that enough evidence exists to get an indictment is damning enough for a political scumbag with as much negative baggage as DeLay... You can add this on to his four censures from the House...
Cycloptichorn
The current mayor of San Jose was challenged for breaking state and local laws concerning an agreement he made with the waste company to supplement contract payments without informing the city council. Last year's Grand Jury investigated, and prepared a report. The mayor rejected the report as politically motivated, but he is now being challenged by many in the city council. Whether he will survive this is being investigated by an independent investigator. If found guilty, he will be fired. Several years ago, the mayor of Mountain View, California, was charged with breaking the law by the Grand Jury. He was fired from his job. Elected officials may refuse to cooperate with the Grand Jury, but under California law, they are required to respond to any Grand Jury report. That's the reason why there is a independent investation now in progress against the mayor of San Jose.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Noone said it WAS a trial.
...
I tried to make the point that a grand jury proceeding is not a trial, and one of the biggest differences (among the obvious difference in objectives) is that a grand jury does not hear evidence presented by those indicted. It is not a trial, it is a one-sided affair. That was my sole point, and the one that c.i. apparently decided to argue with me about. He appears to think that we should skip the trial portion of the process, because the grand jury determination is sufficient.
I just re-read what c.i. said earlier, which is he was involved in a "Civil Grand Jury," which is an entirely different matter than the proceeding down in Texas.
Sorry, I was confused by all that as well.
Lol
Interesting times
Cycloptichorn
Sometimes the Grand Jury gets results without a trial. It's up to the District Attorney to determine the process. I never equated the Grand Jury to a trial. That's your assumption.
Thanks, Tico. Yes, it seems that our procedure is very similar to yours.
(In cases where politicans are involved [= the procecution want to start investigations against them], the procecution has to ask the president of the parliament [state or federal] to repeal the immunity [which actually is then done by a parliamentary committee]. After that, they only can start with their investigations .... and that usually should be the point, where the politicans step back from their office.)
In the case of Tom Delay, however, the charges are not being brought at the Federal government level but rather from the State level. The Grand Jury as Tico described is strictly to review the evidence the prosecution has and determine if it is sufficient to bring charges (indictment) against the person. There is no presumption whatsoever of guilt or innocence at that level.
Frankly, the case as outlined in the indictment against Delay looks pretty thin to me, but then I'm no legal eagle either.
That's a point I was about to make, FF. The indictment is very thin with regard to DeLay. There is nothing tying him to the contribution. There is nothing in the indictment about DeLay taking any action in furtherance of the conspiracy. I wouldn't look upon this indictment as being "damning," by any stretch. Obviously there's more we're not aware of, but this could very well turn out to be just another Republican witchhunt of Earle's.
So it looks to me as though DeLay will be the front runner in the next pres election, he is (1) a born again christian (2) recovering alcoholic (3) native of the Republic of Texas (4) corrupt (5) a moron.
I hope he wins as that will be the demise of the republican party for a century or three.
It might be a one-sided affair, but Grand Juries provide an advocate for the people not otherwise available to them. I don't give a shet it isn't a trial. It's part of the American legal system. Get over it. DeLay is being laid out to pasture.
cicerone imposter wrote:It might be a one-sided affair, but Grand Juries provide an advocate for the people not otherwise available to them. I don't give a shet it isn't a trial. It's part of the American legal system. Get over it. DeLay is being laid out to pasture.
LOL. Of course it's part of the American legal system. But I'm afraid I have to call "BS" on your claim that a grand jury is an "advocate for the people." The grand jury is not supposed to be an advocate at all. What were you advocating when you sat on the Civl GJ? The criminal grand jury is designed to weigh the evidence presented, and determine whether an indictment should be returned or not. Period. No advocacy.
"The grand jury in the United States has become both a sword and a shield of justice: a sword, because it can investigate crime and indict criminals; a shield, because by its secret and nonpublic nature, it can protect the innocent against unfair publicity." source: countylaw.com
tico, You can laugh stupidly all you want; that's a freedom allowed in the US. Grand Juries are advocates of the people by investigating government corruption or inefficiency.
cicerone imposter wrote:tico, You can laugh stupidly all you want; that's a freedom allowed in the US. Grand Juries are advocates of the people by investigating government corruption or inefficiency.
If you were an
advocate in your role as a grand juror, you apparently misunderstood and misused your role. You can wax poetic about the grand jury all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that in this instance, the role of the GJ is to determine whether to swear out an indictment against the defendant: whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime, and that the crime occurred. They should make this determination based upon the evidence presented to it. There should be no advocacy.
Excuse me? I was describing my own experience in the Grand Jury here in California. I' have never worked in a federal grand jury. What's your confusion?
