Just showing up is an act in furtherance. The problem I see for the prosecution is establish advance agreement. many of the weapons were in cars. The weapons on some of the arrested were nothing more than penknives.
-- Again, damned if they do and damned if they don't. --
That's the nature of the gig. And here we are, and I'll be damned if the cops aren't given blessings and attaboys. So, they aren't damned if they don't, at least not by you.
-- Don't forget they can appeal [the finding of probable cause] to the next level before taking it to the Federal courts. --
Ummm, no, they can't. A finding of probable cause is not reviewable. Next step is up to the DA. He can press for an indictment, or not. If he does, and the grand jury agrees, the accused MUST stand trial, and that is necessarily in a Texas court.
-- ... there are plenty of cases dismissed every day for lack of [probable cause] --
I'd like a source for that, because I think it isn't true. Or at least is tends to overstate the rate of unlawful arrest. I agree that unlawful arrest is common, usually the cops just release the accused before there is ever a case before a judge.
-- it does not change what I said - that we (the public) have not seen most of the evidence that would be presented at trial. --
What you said, that I replied to, was exactly this: "I know that we will never see all the evidence the jury does at trial ..." (emphasis mine). Now you are changing your statement, while claiming to not change it. Hmm.
“The problem I see for the prosecution is establish advance agreement. many of the weapons were in cars. The weapons on some of the arrested were nothing more than penknives.”
Carrying weapons in cars is common for the gangs. If they have made previous rides where long guns were carried in cars to meetings a case can be made that they should have know about weapons in the cars.
Over a hundred and fifty guns were recovered. Some may have only had pen knives but I really do not consider that to be typical but find it would be very UNtypical of those at Twin Peaks.
I don’t know Texas law so you may be right that it is not subject to further review, but again, 160 year old court and 2 to 1 decision to uphold probable cause by a system put in place by the voters.
We don’t have to agree on “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” I’m fine with that.
There are plenty of cases dismissed for lack of probable cause in affidavits or skimpy investigations and the cops/courts don’t always get it right. At the end of the day though there is the right to a trial and the trial results can be reviewed ad nauseum all the way to the Supreme Court so it’s very difficult to say the process (albeit not perfect) ends up with a pretty fair result.
I’m not sure what you meant on the last part as I was agreeing with you that the jury does not see everything in a trial. No beef here and I don’t feel like I changed anything, but I am not here to split hairs. There are enough split hairs on this thread to make a wig (i.e. Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd - who cares?).