I don't think we know why she chose not to go to a Grand Jury, and I wouldn't speculate. Calling her a "media " is going way too far.
I agree. I didn't say they couldn't just that it was unnecessary fluff.
That would be good to know and see because, putting this forward as probable cause for a charge of 2nd degree murder, isn't very pretty.
On this, I disagree. I'm not sure you've listened to the call between Zimmerman and the dispatcher but, it is a fact the dispatcher never told Zimmerman to wait for an officer. And, the reason I'm stuck on this one item is because I believe (and, you can disagree) the investigators are claiming Zimmerman's disregard of police instructions is evidence of him "evincing a depraved mind." It seems to be an important point for the investigators to establish George Zimmerman was told to do something by police and he didn't.
Sure, PC affidavits are usually perfunctory exercises used to move a case forward but, they are still sworn statements in which perjury rules apply, no?
Agreed but, that seems to be the meat of their affidavit -- the hearsay appears to be on what they relied to reach the conclusion of 2nd degree murder -- not that the hearsay supports other facts leading them to that belief.
It's sloppy work in a high-profile case. And, , I could tell you there was a confrontation -- but, there is not enough, in my mind, to cir stantially infer that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation...they just state that as fact.
Another thing that bothers me is the Special Prosecutor chose to by pass the Grand Jury. It's true they're not obligated to use a Grand Jury, except in certain cases, but in a high-profile and contested case, such as this -- as a prosecutor, I would want the political cover a Grand Jury provides.
Either this prosecutor doesn't have confidence in her charge or she's a media that didn't want to risk being shown up by a bunch of punk citizens.
I don't think we know why she chose not to go to a Grand Jury, and I wouldn't speculate. Calling her a "media " is going way too far.
the guy that deliberately went hunting didn't instigate a confrontation. lol
Did you watch her press conference? Have you ever seen a prosecutor ham it up like that over such a serious case? But, I merely suggested it was a possibility, anyway.
I'm more interested in what you believe are the legitimate reasons a prosecutor would want to bypass a Grand Jury.
She couldn't stop smiling at the press conference because she just hit the prosecutors lottery. She's gonna make millions on the book...Marcia Clark II.
First off, there's no obligation for a state-level DA's Office to use Grand Juries, since that federal right was not selectively incorporated (and Florida only requires them with regard to capital offenses). It could be that the prosecutor just wanted to make that decision herself, which is fine. I think what you're suggesting is that she was afraid of getting no-billed by the Grand Jury because there is not probable cause for the charges. But honestly, I don't think that's a problem given how this case was charged.
It's funny to me that legal scholars like Alan Dershowitz consider Grand Juries a "rubber stamp" for prosecutors until state prosecutors exercise their right not to use one; then they're suddenly gatekeepers of justice.
who's gonna buy that book?
Probably the same ones that bought OJ's book. Marcia Clark made 5 million in royalties.
i'm gettin mighty sick o yern additude.
meet me at the corral, ok?
This whole thing has already turned into the "Casey Anthony Trial for Men".
yah, but she was ty.
True....I would have hit it.......well, before she killed her kid anyway......ok, I still would.
Fair enough, I'm not as familiar with what the obligations are once the State or Feds step in. But, on that point, I'm seem to recall reading the Sanford Prosecutor was preparing the case for presentation to a Grand Jury when all the nonsense about how Sanford was going to just let a murderer walk scott free.
Would you agree that it is not uncommon for police and prosecutors to wait on filing charges and pursuing prosecution if they believe they lack enough evidence to win a conviction? I know of several cases where it took years to develop a case.
Point being, unless Zimmerman was believed to be a continuing threat -- there is nothing out of the ordinary with not arresting a suspect until you have probable cause to do so.
I think that police officer that murdered two wives is a good example.
That is what I'm suggesting. I think it's also why the local prosecutor was reluctant to seek an arrest warrant.
My belief notwithstanding, what are some of the legitimate reasons a prosecutor would not want the Grand Jury to review the case?
I've never believed Grand Juries were "rubber stamps," in fact, I know the opposite to be true where I was involved in such things. No bills were just as likely as indictments.
One rule of thumb I know prosecutors weigh -- and, again, correct me if I'm wrong in this generalization -- is what value will a Grand Jury review provide. The courts are overflowing and, if the prosecutor has a slam dunk case, there is no reason to burden the Grand Jury for an indictment.
However, if there is a high-profile case, where the facts are contested, and where it is possible the prosecutor's objectivity might be questioned it has been my experience the prosecutor will send the case to a Grand Jury. And, even there, they then have the bully pulpit where they can characterize the case however they believe will result in an indictment with the full confidence there will be no defense presentation of exculpatory facts.
I would think a prosecutor in this case would want that cover and can't imagine, short of not having the evidence to prove a case, that she wouldn't do it in this case. I don't see the downside of a Grand Jury presentation, in this case, unless you don't have a case.
I don't know what Dershowitz has ever said on that on that.
After doing a little online research, it appears Florida does not use Grand Juries for non-capital felony offenses. So this doesn't appear out of the ordinary.
IIRC, the indictment rate of Grand Juries both at the state and federal level is in the 98%-99% range, which is where the "rubber stamp" argument came from.
That's all well and good but, this isn't an ordinary case and, so far as I know, the prosecutor isn't precluded from presenting the case to a Grand Jury.
I'm having trouble constructing a Google search that doesn't result, almost exclusively, in article discussing the Special Prosecutor's decision not to use the Grand Jury but, I seem to recall, this case was originally headed to a Grand Jury when it was handed over to the Special Prosecutor.
Grand Juries aren't a defense venue so, a high percentage of indictments isn't unexpected.
An indictment would be expected in this case as well.
Not as big a deal as you're making it out to be
Expected but not guaranteed.
You're right; it's not as big as why the investigators -- with decades of experience -- wrote such a crappy PC affidavit and included, as fact, a fabrication.
Maybe things don't work the way you think they do, Yoni. You just had a prosecutor here tell you as much.
Wasn't it Lumpy Rutherford that would stand behind Wally and affirm everything he said to Eddie Haskell saying something like, "Yeah, Eddie! You don't know!"
You sound like TheProfessor's Lumpy.
I don't think TheProfessor and I disagree over much here.
I think we both agree the Probable Cause affidavit was a mess; but, we disagree over the importance of it's construction and contents.
I think we both agree the Special Prosecutor was not obligated to present the case to a Grand Jury; but, we disagree on the wisdom and reason for this prosecutor not doing so. Actually, I don't know that we disagree on this point as TheProfessor is unwilling to speculate.
Well, in keeping with the Law Enforcement theme, I probably should have said you were playing Barney Fife to TheProfessor's Sheriff Andy Taylor.
I don't agree with that view at all.
And you'll have to excuse me for giving more weight to the opinion of a prosecutor over legal matters than somebody with a law enforcement background.
After all, you don't ask a cop to defend you when you go on trial.
Which view? The view TheProfessor and I agree the affidavit was poorly done? Or, the view TheProfessor and I disagree over the importance of that?
I'm a bit unclear on this point but, I believe state prosecutors are considered law enforcement officers; many are commissioned as peace officers.
That's what I recall from my previous life. TheProfessor?
You don't call a prosecutor to defend you either. Unless, of course, he's no longer prosecuting and has hung up his shingle as a defense attorney.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
