as far as I understand the process the DA only presents its evidence against the accused.
It has no obligation to present a defense. Which is why they say you could “indict a ham sandwich”
That’s is their objective.
Trump will make them regret it.................
You are correct — but most DAs wouldn’t do any of this knowing it would eventually lead to their cases falling apart.
as far as I understand the process the DA only presents its evidence against the accused.
It has no obligation to present a defense. Which is why they say you could “indict a ham sandwich”
*********
True, but this needs to be changed. Otherwise, an accused can be put to the expense and risk of a trial even when there is a mountain of evidence in his favor — evidence that would have resulted in no trial if it had been seen. Why bother to have grand juries if they are only puppets of the prosecutor?
It gets trickier than that.
I have just gotten off a month of grand jury duty. We dealt with a lot of cases. One example: some of the evidence presented to us consisted of security camera footage. We actually had one full shooting scene captured on the security camera of a building across the parking lot.
So here’s the question: what if a corrupt prosecutor edits the video? Maybe he just cuts off the beginning or the end to delete footage that refutes his case. Is this legitimate? Of course not.
That is substantively no different from what Bragg appears to have done in this case.
The prosecutor has the resources of the entire Gouvernement at his disposal. He/she is required by law to present the evidence all of it and to make it available to the defense.
It’s my understanding that if a DA fails to present exculpatory evidence that refutes an element of the crime, any subsequent indictment should be dismissed. The DA is also subject to professional disciplinary action.
True, but most Americans donâÂÂt know this and going after the guy who should be President shines a sun-sized spotlight on how corrupt our judicial system is to normies. Bragg made one of the biggest blunders in modern political history, but when there is zero fear of ramifications from the DOJ or NY state leadership he got sloppy/âÂÂ.
Correct. There is no defense attorney at a grand jury, the potential accused doesn’t testify and doesn’t learn what evidence has been presented. The entire standard is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge without regard to any defense.
In most states, most cases don’t even go to the grand jury but are filed based on an “information”, essentially an affidavit by the prosecutor that there is sufficient evidence to reasonably believe a crime has been committed and that the axc
It has no obligation to present a defense. Which is why they say you could “indict a ham sandwich”
https://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/criminal-process/grand-jury-overview/rights-of-accused-at-grand-jury/
Right to Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence
While the prosecutor represents the state and has no obligation to present the defendant’s side of the story, he has an obligation to present evidence to the Grand Jury that is “clearly exculpatory.” In order for evidence to satisfy this threshold, it must refute an element of the crime charged. If the prosecutor fails to present evidence that is exculpatory and meets this standard, that conduct warrants dismissal of the indictment.
Now that is NJ but I would think NY would be similar.