Comments on: “if no one is informed, no one will object.” http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/11/15/if-no-one-is-informed-no-one-will-object/ Formerly America's Best-Loved Unknown Cartoonist, now independently animating a feature film, "Sita Sings the Blues." Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:55:48 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: anon http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/11/15/if-no-one-is-informed-no-one-will-object/comment-page-1/#comment-38227 anon Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:18:37 +0000 http://blog.ninapaley.com/?p=780#comment-38227 Take heart. In my small town (~30K), the grand juries have no qualms about telling the prosecutor to go piss up a rope if they think he's trying to blow smoke up their asses. (This from 3 people I know who have served.) OTOH, any petit jury duty letter I get will result in a contempt citation against me, after I get done telling off the attorneys during the selection. Take heart. In my small town (~30K), the grand juries have no qualms about telling the prosecutor to go piss up a rope if they think he’s trying to blow smoke up their asses. (This from 3 people I know who have served.)

OTOH, any petit jury duty letter I get will result in a contempt citation against me, after I get done telling off the attorneys during the selection.

]]> By: Nina Paley http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/11/15/if-no-one-is-informed-no-one-will-object/comment-page-1/#comment-38220 Nina Paley Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:48:18 +0000 http://blog.ninapaley.com/?p=780#comment-38220 @Ronak - being sent to trial is no joke. Also they don't just send things to trial - they legitimize charge after charge. Also Grand Juries are used to gather evidence that would be unconstitutional in a real trial. Also, if you read the above, Grand Juries compliantly rubber stamp whatever the prosecutor wants. They simply don't work the way they were supposed to. @Ronak – being sent to trial is no joke. Also they don’t just send things to trial – they legitimize charge after charge. Also Grand Juries are used to gather evidence that would be unconstitutional in a real trial. Also, if you read the above, Grand Juries compliantly rubber stamp whatever the prosecutor wants. They simply don’t work the way they were supposed to.

]]> By: Ronak M Soni http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/11/15/if-no-one-is-informed-no-one-will-object/comment-page-1/#comment-38213 Ronak M Soni Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:02:31 +0000 http://blog.ninapaley.com/?p=780#comment-38213 I don't what's so bad about this. After all, the grand jury only decides whether the case goes to trial, right? In the trial, the defendant gets all the protection he wants. And prosecutors are allowed to choose the jury because they should be allowed the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the decision of whether there should be a trial. Of course, it's a bum that they can call new ones how many ever times they want. I don’t what’s so bad about this. After all, the grand jury only decides whether the case goes to trial, right? In the trial, the defendant gets all the protection he wants. And prosecutors are allowed to choose the jury because they should be allowed the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the decision of whether there should be a trial.
Of course, it’s a bum that they can call new ones how many ever times they want.

]]> By: Karl Fogel http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/11/15/if-no-one-is-informed-no-one-will-object/comment-page-1/#comment-38202 Karl Fogel Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:56:19 +0000 http://blog.ninapaley.com/?p=780#comment-38202 Well, either they need to be abolished or people need to have the same protections in front of grand juries that they do in front of trial juries... That would allow a grand jury to still act as a check on overzealous prosecutors, while preventing it from being a way to force activists to testify about their doings without legal guidance or protection. And because the members of a grand jury are just voting about whether to indict, not whether to convict, they would be perfectly free to regard someone's silence as suspicious and vote the case to trial anyway. In a way, the lower threshold for convincing the jurors means that defendant protections could, if anything, be *stronger* than they are for trial juries, without impairing the effectiveness of grand juries for their stated purpose. Of course, they seem to have drifted far from that original purpose anyway... :-( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Jury#Criticism has some very good commentary. Well, either they need to be abolished or people need to have the same protections in front of grand juries that they do in front of trial juries… That would allow a grand jury to still act as a check on overzealous prosecutors, while preventing it from being a way to force activists to testify about their doings without legal guidance or protection. And because the members of a grand jury are just voting about whether to indict, not whether to convict, they would be perfectly free to regard someone’s silence as suspicious and vote the case to trial anyway. In a way, the lower threshold for convincing the jurors means that defendant protections could, if anything, be *stronger* than they are for trial juries, without impairing the effectiveness of grand juries for their stated purpose.

Of course, they seem to have drifted far from that original purpose anyway… :-(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Jury#Criticism has some very good commentary.

]]>