[Cboldt]

-- Nor does it make a valid point. --

Sure it does. Some people are biased to find guilt, such as inferring that association with an OMG or associated group, plus riding to or showing up at Twin Peaks, plus an altercation at Twin Peaks, is sufficient evidence to find conspiracy to commit aggravated assault or worse. Ride with dogs, wake up with fleas.

-- The presumption that only guilty people are arrested would obviate the need for a jury to begin with. --

In principle, yes. But principle is out the window, it appears. Some members of OMGs are criminals, people who choose to associate with them are therefore also criminals. An easy leap to make, many people make it. Once adhered to the conclusion, reasoned argument is a waste of time.

Plus, in principle, arrest only happens on probable cause that a crime has been committed. The points of evidence that I noted above are incontrovertible, defendants wouldn't deny them, so there is no need for a jury to weigh the testimony to determine if the facts have been "proved."

If the facts above are sufficient to have probable cause, they are sufficient to attach guilt. "As a matter of law," because no facts are in contest.

Facts above:

• associates with an OMG or affiliated group
• the OMG is in TX database as a criminal enterprise (i.e., there is independent evidence that proves this)
• bad blood between two rival OMGs
• rode with an OMG or affiliated group (or otherwise showed up at) Twin Peaks
• altercation at Twin Peaks, instigated by a member of an OMG, resulting in death

I'd add a more facts that are probably not effectively contestable, but that aren't stated in the complaint:

• some members of the rival OMGs intended to press a turf issue at Twin Peaks
• the altercation was deliberately provoked by a member of an OMG
• a provocation, although not in any definite form, was planned in advance

Add one more hypothetical, to play with:

• there was in fact a conspiracy between 5 identified OMG members, in each OMG, to provoke and perpetrate a rumble at Twin Peaks

You might be surprised to learn the fraction of arrests that result in conviction, without a trial. A trial is not essential to establish guilt. Trials are conducted when defendant (his lawyer) can suppress evidence, or when evidence is equivocal or unreliable. But some evidence is highly reliable. I don't think any statement of fact in the complaint is reasonably disputed. As I said above, if those statements of fact are enough to support probable cause, then they also establish guilt.

Nearly ninety-five percent of all criminal cases are disposed of by a guilty plea. Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial, by Donald J. Newman.

[AMDG&BVMH]

“Nearly ninety-five percent of all criminal cases are disposed of by a guilty plea.”

[Please forgive me that I cannot devote the time to your information that it deserves at the moment, because I am embroiled in reams of accounting data etc.]

So I will ask only about the above, in this situation.

At arraignment, one enters a plea.
Did any of those arrested at Twin Peaks enter a plea of other than not-guilty? Is that because they and their lawyers are waiting to see if they are indeed indicted? Then if they are indicted, is that when some of them might enter into plea negotiations?

If one pleas not-guilty in the sense that he considers himself to be not guilty and believes he will not be convicted of a crime, it would make sense to wait and hope there is no indictment.