Posted on 07/25/2013 6:42:57 AM PDT by JimRed
Florida State’s Attorney Angela Corey has been indicted by a citizens’ grand jury, convening in Ocala, Florida, over the alleged falsification of the arrest warrant and complaint that lead to George Zimmerman being charged with the second degree murder of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (see www.citizensgrandjury.com), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman’s head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.
Following Corey’s criminal complaint charging Zimmerman, legal experts such as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned her for falsely signing an arrest affidavit under oath, which intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence consisting of the photographs showing the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and rushing to charge him with second degree murder under political pressure.
Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/07/florida-prosecutor-indicted-for-falsifying-arrest-warrant-against-george-zimmerman/#ixzz2a42GGaxA
I’m not the one who is incapable of understanding the law.
Do you have any f-—ing clue who this guy is???
Antonin Scalia
Yes, but understanding a law which is wholly imaginary doesn’t establish a lot of credibility in the real world.
“Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48]”
And what Constitutionally appointed judges called this particular “grand Jury” together?
Art 6, § 2. Due process--Right to work.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union, or labor organization.
“. . .I’m sure here’s a Micky D someplace that needs burger flippers. . . “
Hi meatloaf, Would you really want a burger they had been near? I can’t bring myself to eat from those places now, let alone if they began hiring these lower than pond scum examples of citizenry.
TL
“Crap! Can I still keep Delaware?”
Well, OK. You can keep Delaware but your throne will be on “Candelabra Beach”! ;-)
For starters, under what statute did Klayman "subpoena" jurors or was it simply a good ole boy promise of all the Carling Black Label and pretzels they could consume?
Did you obtain your JD in a box of Cracker Jack?
These posts and articles about “citizens grand juries” drive me nuts. So patently unrealistic.
I don’t give a crap about Klayman.
Scalia is exposing the power that WE the people still have IF we can get all of the stupid people to educate themselves to learn the law.
PooPoo’ing the ‘Citizen Gran Jury’ is playing right into the globalist’s hand regardless of who is promoting it, but maybe that is your intention
Poopooing something that some people just made up does what?
Read the article;
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER
I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.
“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
The 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :
“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:
‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’
Actually, while citizen grand juries don’t have force of law right now, they ring a peculiar note with the judiciary.
“A grand jury is not an arm of the court but “is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside.
“Grand juries perform both accusatory and investigatory functions. In the early decades of the United States citizen grand juries played a major role in public matters.
“Any citizen could bring a matter before a grand jury directly, from a public work that needed repair, to the delinquent conduct of a public official, to a complaint of a crime, and grand juries could conduct their own investigations.
“In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by a laymen.
“A layman could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury; if the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to the complainant.
“The grand jury would then appoint the complaining party to exercise the authority of an attorney general, that is, one having a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case. The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions.
“The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions.”
This last sentence is very important.
That is, modern grand juries have only been around for about 130 years. This means there is a huge amount of judicial precedent for citizen grand juries.
‘Stare decisis’ is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. In practice this means that they show deference or at least consideration to the law, even as it was written before it was changed as public policy.
This sometimes figures into other aspects of court hearings, such as judges giving wide latitude to criminal defendants who decide to defend themselves instead of hiring a lawyer.
So what does this mean? If states decided to legitimize citizen grand juries, they could do so by mandating that if such a citizen grand jury reached a decision that could result in an indictment, that they could hire an advocate to present that information to a modern grand jury, whether or not a prosecutor wanted to present that evidence.
Prosecutors are often thought to have far too much power to determine who grand juries prosecute and who they do not, often for political reasons. And this would be a way for the citizenry to go over his head, and obtain a legal indictment whether he wanted to or not.
And a lot of judges would respect that.
Unrealistic, so long as we render them so by not supporting them. Make enough noise about it and they'll have to respond, either with a follow up on the "indictment" or by telling them to get lost. The latter will have smoked out their disregard for the populace.
The perfect irony would be one of the racially whipped up black drive-by thugs ending her career in her driveway, not knowing she is the filth that instigated the racial crap.
citizen’s grand jury is like a ‘fun size’ candy bar.
what’s fun about a candy bar 1/3 as big as a normal one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.