California bans Grand Juries ....

[Devils Advocate]

.... in police deadly force cases. 

Link to make you Think

Quote:Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Tuesday a measure that prohibits secret grand juries to weigh in on cases involving excessive or deadly force by law enforcement, and another affirming the public’s right to take audio or video recordings of police officers.


Both measures were part of a spate of proposals introduced by lawmakers earlier this year on police accountability; some of the more controversial bills dealing with body-worn cameras or reporting on use-of-force incidents have stalled in the Legislature.


Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) offered the grand juries measure in response to high-profile incidents in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City, where grand juries declined to indict police officers for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively.

Mitchell said her bill, SB 227, would help make judicial proceedings more transparent and accountable. Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties already have opted not to use grand juries when an officer's actions may have caused someone's death.

“One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to understand why SB 227 makes sense,” Mitchell said in a statement.  “The use of the criminal grand jury process, and the refusal to indict as occurred in Ferguson and other communities of color, has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system.”

The measure was opposed by law enforcement groups, including the California Assn. of District Attorneys, which argued the grand jury system was a useful prosecutorial tool.

Brown also approved the "right to record" bill by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). The measure, SB 411, makes clear that it is legal for a person to record the actions of a police officer if that officer is in a public place, or if the person making the recording has a right to be in that place.

“With the stroke of a pen, Gov. Brown reinforces our 1st Amendment right and ensures transparency, accountability and justice for all Californians," Lara said in a statement.  "At a time when cellphone and video footage is helping steer important national civil rights conversations, passage of the Right to Record Act sets an example for the rest of the nation to follow.

[nevergonnachange]

Are the grand juries that look into police shootings different than a grand jury that would look at a case if it's Joe Blow accused of murder?

[StLucieBengal]

So basically they don't want The idiots of Black lives matter rioting in their state.

Maybe someone with a legal background can weigh in.... Feels sketchy.

[Au165]

See the thread I just posted about the police officer who chose not to shoot because of all the recent stories and got beat unconscious instead. That is a perfect example of why there should be grand juries. Take the media circus out of it and let informed people make a call based on the merits of the case, not because of the media influence.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 08:07 AM)nevergonnachange Wrote: Are the grand juries that look into police shootings different than a grand jury that would look at  a case if it's Joe Blow accused of murder?

Joe Blow and the District Attorney don't work together as a team on a daily basis like the police and DA do.

Their is a conflict of interest in letting the District Attorney deal with one of his own officers behind closed doors.  

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 09:25 AM)Au165 Wrote: See the thread I just posted about the police officer who chose not to shoot because of all the recent stories and got beat unconscious instead. That is a perfect example of why there should be grand juries. Take the media circus out of it and let informed people make a call based on the merits of the case, not because of the media influence.

A grand jury does nothing to "take the media out of it".

[Au165]

(08-14-2015, 04:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A grand jury does nothing to "take the media out of it".

Do grand juries not get to work almost in secret without media coverage of the activities? Do they also not convene. often times before major media can start building "their case". To me they allow for a preemptive strike before the court of public opinion can really start tainting a jury pool. Plus my understanding is they get a little more access as far as questioning and evidence.

[Au165]

Also quick question Fred, don't the officers have a right to a grand jury in a case of major crimes?

[Brownshoe]

(08-14-2015, 04:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Do grand juries not get to work almost in secret without media coverage of the activities? Do they also not convene. often times before major media can start building "their case". To me they allow for a preemptive strike before the court of public opinion can really start tainting a jury pool. Plus my understanding is they get a little more access as far as questioning and evidence.

A grand jury only sees if there's enough evidence to take it to actual court. They only see the evidence from the prosecutor, and nothing from the defense.

[Au165]

(08-14-2015, 04:50 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: A grand jury only sees if there's enough evidence to take it to actual court. They only see the evidence from the prosecutor, and nothing from the defense.

Grand juries can ask to question, as well as view any evidence they please, to determine if charges should be brought. The thing is your right they only hear from the prosecution, but the defense in this example is the cop who did the shooting, which seems like they are actually fighting for the cops.

[Brownshoe]

(08-14-2015, 04:53 PM)Au165 Wrote: Grand juries can ask to question, as well as view any evidence they please, to determine if charges should be brought. The thing is your right they only hear from the prosecution, but the defense in this example is the cop who did the shooting, which seems like they are actually fighting for the cops.

They can't ask the defendant any qustions or even their attorney. They only have the evidence that the prosecutors have.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 04:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Do grand juries not get to work almost in secret without media coverage of the activities? Do they also not convene. often times before major media can start building "their case". To me they allow for a preemptive strike before the court of public opinion can really start tainting a jury pool. Plus my understanding is they get a little more access as far as questioning and evidence.

All of the crying I hear about the media coverage is from the instant it happens, not later when the grand jury is meeting.

The media just reports any information they get.  I don't know why people think the media only present one side.  For example in Ferguson the media released everything the police gave them as soon as it came out.  

[fredtoast]

The prosecutor controls exactly what evidence the jurors see. And the prosecutor works with the police force every single day in prosecuting other crimes.

even if they don't do away with grand juries in these cases they should bring in impartial Prosecutors who are not on the same side as the police officers.

[Brownshoe]

(08-14-2015, 05:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: You do keep harping on this, defense is the cop doing the shooting. So the people who can't present the case are the ones who they are removing this constitutional right from lol.

Side note: from what I have read the grand jury can ask to see any evidence they like even if the prosecutor didn't present it. They can also ask for testimony from whomever they like including the defendant if they want.

What have I said to make it seem like the cops aren't the defendants? How can you ask for evidence you don't know about? They cannot ask for testimony from the defendants from what I was told. Just a few years ago I was on a grand jury for Butler county.

[Au165]

(08-14-2015, 05:28 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: What have I said to make it seem like the cops aren't the defendants? How can you ask for evidence you don't know about? They cannot ask for testimony from the defendants from what I was told. Just a few years ago I was on a grand jury for Butler county.

Damn, I accidentally deleted the post when I went to edit it. You can ask for a piece of a puzzle that seems to be missing. As for the witness part


"jurors may be asked whether they would like to hear any additional witnesses, but since their job is
only to judge what the prosecutor has produced, they rarely ask to do so. "

I read that as they could, but normally choose not to. As for the defendant I also saw where they could subpoena anyone, the issue would be a defendant could refuse on the grounds of not incriminating themselves., but they in theory could give their side if they wanted.

[Au165]

(08-14-2015, 05:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: even if they don't do away with grand juries in these cases they should bring in impartial Prosecutors who are not on the same side as the police officers.

I agree with this. Fred as to my other question, isn't a grand jury a constitutional right of the police officer?

[Brownshoe]

(08-14-2015, 05:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: Damn, I accidentally deleted the post when I went to edit it. You can ask for a piece of a puzzle that seems to be missing. As for the witness part


"jurors may be asked whether they would like to hear any additional witnesses, but since their job is
only to judge what the prosecutor has produced, they rarely ask to do so. "

I read that as they could, but normally choose not to. As for the defendant I also saw where they could subpoena anyone, the issue would be a defendant could refuse on the grounds of not incriminating themselves., but they in theory could give their side if they wanted.

That may be the case, but I was not informed when I was on a grand jury that we could question the defendant. It is kind of hard to ask for any evidence that they want to withhold if you don't know about it.

[Au165]

(08-14-2015, 05:37 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: That may be the case, but I was not informed when I was on a grand jury that we could question the defendant. It is kind of hard to ask for any evidence that they want to withhold if you don't know about it.

Yea I guess it's pretty much up to the prosecutors of how it is handled. I am on Fred's side it should be an independent prosecutor in cases of police officers.