I've been wondering, just who is called to serve on grand juries anyway? Clearly, something is wrong when grand juries become secretive replacements for what is supposed to be the cornerstone of American justice: the accountability of public trials.
From the Federalist on the failure of a New York grand jury to issue an indictment in the homicide (as determined by the coroner) of Eric Garner, an unarmed non-violent man, whose death was caught on video:
"Why, it’s almost as if the grand jury system is just a convenient means for prosecutors to get the outcome they want wrapped in a veneer of due process. Want to indict a ham sandwich? Consider it indicted. Texas Gov. Rick Perry was indicted for vetoing a spending bill, but a New York prosecutor can’t indict an officer who killed another man in an incident that was completely captured on video? Come on."
You would think that it would at least rise to negligent homicide. The coroner ruled it a homicide and how many time do you have to say you can't breathe.
ReplyDeletePossibly, but that is not even really the issue for a grand jury. The standard, as I understand it, is not whether they think there is enough evidence to win a conviction, but if there is enough evidence to go to trial. The video alone should have met that test.
ReplyDelete