Posted on 09/30/2005 7:35:03 PM PDT by anymouse
Most men in his circumstances like to believe they are fair and impartial.
I agree.
But when you go on a Grand Jury the State judges come in and explain that what you hear must be secret. They threaten you about revealing anything. They swear you in and scare the pants off you. You can ruin a case, criminals can walk or you could subject an innocent man to jail time if you blab.
They gave examples of the harm.
"In a case in which the plaintiff has failed to present on the facts of his case proper evidence for jury consideration, the trial judge may order the entry of a verdict without allowing the jury to consider it."
From what I've read, the judge in the Hutchinson case disallowed most of the evidence Earle had planned to present, deciding that the evidence was not properly admissible.
The stubborn Earle refused to drop the case (as it was political, you see), so the judge ordered the jury (who were not going to see any evidence) to render a not guilty verdict.
Earle then took the so-called evidence to a motel room and invited reporters to come in and look at it...essentially trying the case with the inadmissible evidence in front of the reporters, with no one else present to challenge anything.
Quite a piece of work, eh?
Earle is indefatigable in pursuing his goals. That as we have seen, can be a mixed bag, at once a character asset and flaw.
He is having a movie made about his pursuit of DeLay. In the movie, apparently he laces his rhetoric against DeLay (and others whom he claims are turning the little people in America over to corporations through campaign finance activities) with references to the Bible and claims that he is going after these people according to what the Bible says. He goes on to say that those who are somewhat repentant will receive some consideration from him, but woe unto them who are too arrogant to repent...then the scene dissolves into a picture of Tom DeLay. I kid you not.
I wonder if "day has been made out of night" yet in his neighborhood?
This doesn't have the scent of good reporting on it for it's hard to believe that a member of the Grand Jury would be so blatantly outspoken as this.
Earle is a nut!
This can be deduced just by the recent actions taken by him.
ping
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
To me it shows that some little demon is lurking in Gibson's head. Maybe it's his Jiminy Cricket telling him that the jury's finding is built on shifting sand. Maybe that's making him so nervous he has to go public with justifications.
To me, this unusual blabbing is good news.
Leni
This is absolutely true in that Grand Juries really don't go beyond what the district attorney wants. And if they ever did...the DA would seek to disband the grand jury (which has happened). A grand jury actually has a tremendous amount of power that most folks don't realize.
In this case...you picked the liberal town in the entire south...Austin. And I doubt that you could find more than 10 percent of the town that votes Republican, with maybe 20 percent listed as indpendent...the rest are all democrats. DeLay will likely be convicted in this town...and have the situation reversed once it hits the state supreme court. But his career is basically finished. I don't see him rising back to the same position in life. And I'm sure...he will pay them back tens over. If I were a democratic congressman in Texas...I'd be cleaning up my mess as much as possible.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
When I served on a grand jury we could ask anything we wanted to ask, even dumb questions. That might vary state to state, though, and I didn't serve in TX so maybe someone can clarify this point regarding grand juries in TX.
This of course doesn't negate the fact that this blabbermouth violated the order of the judge to keep his trap shut on all matters pertaining to the case and the fact that grand juries are only presented with one side, the prosecutor's.
I have served on both federal and county Grand Juries. Most of what you hear is pretty cut and dried.
The DA or Asst. DA describes the crime and then lists what evidence thay have against a suspect. The jury basically decides, Yes or No, There was a crime. And Yes or No, there is strong enough evidence to believe the suspect MIGHT have committed the crime.
Also a grand jury indictment does not need to be unanimus, A simple majority of a quorum is all that is needed to indict. I don't think most people know that.
We had several "no bills" on the jury I served.
In TX the GJ is actually in charge and if it it so desires can instruct the DA what witnesses to provide, issue subpeona's, and ask any questions they wish.
I'm pretty sure Texas law does not prevent him from speaking once the term is over.
In any given criminal case that comes to trial, at some point the judge is going to give the jury instructions. He will tell them that they must apply the law if the evidence and/or testimony shows that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if they doubt the evidence and/or testimony they may find the defendant not guilty. Or some sort of wording to that effect.
In the Kay Baily Hutchins trial, a charge had been alleged, filed, and a jury impaneled to hear it for judgment. At the time of trial, the D.A. had to present his case. He failed to do so, thus no evidence or testimony was presented. The judge, upon seeing this, did what was logical, at least to my reasoning. He told the jury that no testimony or evidence had been presented, so they must render a verdict of "not guilty."
There is a good reason for this too btw. Once a jury has been impaneled, a "not guilty" verdict protects the defendant from "double jeopardy" and the case can not be filed again.
Legally, who would be responsible for following up on a GJ member talking? The DA (no fear there) or the Judge?
"It's been his philosophy not to have his picture taken ... Gibson said"
--- yes, the superstitious natives often fear that the little picture making box will steal their soul
from:
http://www.co.travis.tx.us/district_courts/criminal_courts/167court/rights.asp
Travis County, TX
Right to indictment:
In Texas, the law dictates that before a defendant can be forced to face trial in a felony case, a grand jury must return an indictment for the specific offense charged. A grand jury consists of 12 citizens who sit for a period of three months and listen to allegations of criminal wrongdoing. Nine members must determine that probable cause exists to believe the defendant has committed the offense and vote a true bill before the indictment will issue. The defendant has no right to appear before the grand jury or offer evidence before that body, but the grand jury can allow such evidence if it desires.
Grand Jury proceedings are not open to the public, and grand jurors, witnesses and prosecutors who appear are required by law to respect grand jury secrecy.
I trust the first judge to hear this case will see this statement. Even better, I hope Ronnie Earle gets up in court and describes his case this way. A hard dollar-soft dollar swap is perfectly legal. What Earle has done is misinform the grand jury about the law, which is easy enough to do since the campaign finance laws are a wretched mess. The hard dollar/soft dollar distinction is pretty basic, but I'd guess that 99% of the public couldn't even manage a reasonable guess about what it means, and that's just a start.
Once you slip a dishonest definition over on the grand jury, it is rather easy to find evidence of a "scheme" or "conspiracy" to commit what is, in reality, a legal act.
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.