Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:52:06 -0500 From: Petro <petro@playboy.com> Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] (fwd)
Jim, "Grand Jury", a jury to see if there is enough evidence to warrant a full trial.
Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have been abused. One wrong does not justify another.
Correct, but this isn't a guilty or innocent trial, this is a "is there enough evidence to try this person" type trial.
This judge can't throw the perp in jail, only throw another trial where there will be 12 to judge.
ARTICLE V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ARTICLE VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- By definition a jury is more than one, it's the reason they are implimented; to moderate the biases of the individual. Secondly, a judge is not impartial when acting in the stead of the state in two capacities at one time. Especialy when by their very nature they are at least to some degree confrontational. Dem's da rules bubba. The Kennedy lawyers should be throwing civil right shit fits about now. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Jim Choate wrote:
Forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:52:06 -0500 From: Petro <petro@playboy.com> Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] (fwd)
Jim, "Grand Jury", a jury to see if there is enough evidence to warrant a full trial.
Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have been abused. One wrong does not justify another.
Correct, but this isn't a guilty or innocent trial, this is a "is there enough evidence to try this person" type trial.
This judge can't throw the perp in jail, only throw another trial where there will be 12 to judge.
What part of Petro's response did you fail to understand? THe "elder Kennedy" is not on trail. A grand jury is convened to determine if enough evidence exists to bring trail. Those brought before a grand jury are almost always witnesses, or potential witnesses, as is the elder Kennedy. A grand jury hearing and a criminal trail are two completely seperate processes. All the grand jury can do is determine whether or not to indite, whereupon the accused has the right to a fair trail before a jury as you state. Anyway, the injustice in this matter is that the two most likely suspects, who were both dating the victim up to her death, have never been brought to trial. Just another abuse by america's "royal family." The murder weapon was a golf club belonging to, as I recall, the father of one of the boys. Both boys were seen with her on the night of her death. No trial for over twenty years, plenty of expensive legal manuvering to prevent one. And now Jim complaining that a single judge is insufficient to determine if an inditement should be handed down. Perhaps prof. Froomkin is reading the list and can pass on an informed legal opinion? I've never seen any regulations baring a judge from serving in the capacity of a grand jury, OTOH, IANAL. -r.w.
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate -
Rabid Wombat