Posted on 11/05/2015 6:03:23 PM PST by Elderberry
Call in one cop as a witness, have the grand jury vote, and it could all be over but the paperwork by lunchtime.
IBTG, IB(X-spurt), IB(AMDG&BVMH), IB(Trumpinator)
The 180 day “deadline” is clearly driving this.
True dat...the malignancy is growing.
This scheduling of the GJ may be related to the Nothing-burger, edited videotape that was released with Waco police “watermarking” following which the Waco DA & police said it wasn’t them that released it (sure, we believe that guys).
“Call in one cop as a witness, have the grand jury vote, and it could all be over but the paperwork by lunchtime.”
That is true. They all have the same charges pending and the evidence is all the same. Just like herding sheep.
Will they be foolish enough to indict them all?
If so the civil suits will take more than ten years to run their course
“...Will they be foolish enough to indict them all?
If so the civil suits will take more than ten years to run their course.”
*****************************************************************************
I’m sure a number of Waco government employees would love to see things dragged out long enough for them to retire on lucrative pensions and get the hell out of Dodge-—far, far away.
I have never served on a Grand Jury. I do know it is supposed to be secret. Abel Reyna (or someone in his office) wanted this to be known. I can't see how that is of benefit to him. Maybe someone else does.
Are they assuming this will be a slam dunk? After all, rubber stamp probable cause affidavits worked out.
Thing is, if they have read the local newspapers and watched television, the panel will have some knowledge of the case. They have heard the protestations of innocence from many of those arrested. This is completely different from most of the cases they have been hearing. They get to ask questions. I believe I am correct that it only takes three votes to return a no true bill.
And if they have been paying attention, they would be aware of the potential financial liability to the city. The more I think of it, the less can I see all 177 being indicted. BUT, Waco has blazed all manner of new trails with this thing.
My hope (not belief) is that those who did actual crimes - assault, murder, reckless endangerment - get indicted and the rest have charges dropped.
In looking at the Texas Statute on Grand Juries:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.20.htm
CHAPTER 20. DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE GRAND JURY
It seems that the Grand Jury cannot group defendants together. They will have to handle each one individually.
“My hope (not belief) is that those who did actual crimes - assault, murder, reckless endangerment - get indicted and the rest have charges dropped.”
....
I would add: justice for the dead and wounded and their families.
What dose that mean? The judicial system is supposed to ascertain guilt and impose punishment. Is there something more than that you are looking for?
The grand jury isn't limited to the accusation used to justify arrest and detention, and I think everybody agrees that the evidence is going to vary across the range of accused.
The grand jury could indict on simple (not gang-related) assault, for example, even though the cookie-cutter accusation doesn't assert that.
Reyna comes off, to me, as a loose cannon. Who knows, he may push to continue the implication of conspiracy based on clothing; or he may focus prosecutorial resources on the few actors caught, on video, perpetrating violence.
Witherspoon does a good job of describing the effect of the 180 day "deadline," which is going to occur no matter what! All that happens is a flurry of motions from accused, to drop all conditions of bond. That doesn't preclude the DA from seeking an indictment later. He has, IIRC, a couple years at least.
Indictments cut off the right to move for dropping bond conditions; but indictments create a bigger workload as those charged start making the demands for speedy trial, discovery, and so forth. The mass arrests set up a pile of work, and Reyna can choose to minimize the size of the pile, or magnify it. 177 trials is lots of work, and ALL of the people charged by the GJ will have a right to a speedy trial. If the state doesn't conduct the trial in a reasonable time after charging, there are other ramifications.
Secrecy attaches ONLY to the grand jurors, not to witnesses. The thing that is keeping witnesses mum is that gag order.
-- My hope (not belief) is that those who did actual crimes - assault, murder, reckless endangerment - get indicted and the rest have charges dropped. --
Nobody has been charged, so there isn't any dropping of charges. And the accusations go stale after 180 days, either indict, or drop the accusation. Dropping an accusation does not preclude leveling a fresh accusation, but a fresh accusation would have to be accompanied by facts not appearing in the first accusation - the state can't just recycle the same old accusation and hold a person in a state of "accused" for an indefinite period.
One ought to wonder why the DA waited until now to put evidence before the GJ. All the time pressure is the state's own doing.
“why the DA waited until now to put evidence before the GJ.”
...
Could it have been waiting for the ballistics reports? Some time ago I read they were expected to be done in Oct or Nov.
“My hope (not belief) is that those who did actual crimes - assault, murder, reckless endangerment - get indicted and the rest have charges dropped.”
....
I would add: justice for the dead and wounded and their families.
***************************************************************************
Yes, and it’s likely that the only justice for the dead, wounded and their families will be coming from the civil suits that will be filed against governmental entities that have been committing injustices. And, IMHO, those injustices have continued (and will continue) to pile up as the “responsible” governmental authorities struggle to find a way to get rid of the tar baby they’ve created and from which they cannot extricate themselves.
Sure, for the accused that the DA believed fired weapons and struck victims. But not for all 177. He could have "worked off" some of the accused, unless he only had intention to pursue charges for those individuals that he believed fired at and hit victims. For those accused, he'd ideally link the accused to the gun to the projectile to the victim.
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.