"Grand Juries Subvert The Criminal Justice System"
Terrific post at Techdirt by Tim Cushing on how grand juries turn "the merely accused into de facto criminals, indistinguishable from the other prisoners except for the fact that many of their new 'peers' have likely had a chance to avail themselves of their constitutional rights."
He notes that a North Carolina grand jury cranked out 276 indictments in four hours -- roughly one every 52 seconds. Cushing continues:
Some commenters pointed out (correctly) that grand juries don't actually declare anyone "guilty." They just determine whether the prosecution has enough evidence to bring the case to trial.But the system is still broken. Grand juries may not hand out guilty verdicts, but they do have the power to imprison people for an indefinite amount of time simply by indicting them. This is exactly what happened to Justin Carter, the teen charged with making terroristic threats after someone reported statements he made while trash-talking with some fellow League of Legends players. The Dallas Observer has been tracking this case (via Reason), and the phrases below are what have been termed "terroristic threats."
One of the comments appears to be a response to an earlier comment in which someone called Carter crazy. Carter's retort was: "I'm fucked in the head alright, I think I'ma SHOOT UP A KINDERGARTEN [sic]."Carter followed with "AND WATCH THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT RAIN DOWN."
Carter was indicted by a grand jury based solely on these statements. (Police failed to uncover anything else damning after searching Carter's residence.) According to Carter's lawyer, the prosecutor presented the "threats" using a couple of screenshots wholly removed from context to the grand jury, which found these met the requirements of the "terroristic threat" charge.
But Flanary says that Bates presented a truncated version of the comments to grand jurors. They did not see "I'm fucked in the head alright, I think I'ma" before "shoot up a kindergarten." If this sounds like the nitpicking of a defense attorney, that's precisely the point."When you're dealing with speech," Flanary says, "... it is absolutely, 100 percent important that the words that you are charging people with are actually the words that they said and not some misrepresentation. And that's what ... this prosecutor did, is misrepresent to the grand jury what he said."
So, the grand jury indicted Carter and the prosecutor asked for $500,000 bail. Carter was jailed in February of 2013 (the first month of which he spent unindicted while officials sorted out jurisdictional issues), where he was beaten, raped, put in solitary for his own protection and placed on suicide watch. He wasn't released until July when an anonymous donor paid the bail.
Read his whole piece. It's sick how this system is being used to subvert justice.
Previous Cushing post on grand juries here, which he rightfully refers to an entity most notable for its willingness to "indict a ham sandwich." (That quote is Tom Wolfe quoting New York State judge Sol Wachtler in The Bonfire of the Vanities.)
Grand juries don't subvert the criminal justice system.
Prosecutors use grand juries as a tool to subvert the criminal justice system.
Isab at February 15, 2014 11:07 AM
A person can be arrested, charged with a crime, and kept in jail until either he makes bail or the prosecutor decides on his own if there's a case to be made. (It's happened to my stepson.) I don't see how it can be any worse for the defendant if a grand jury gets involved. At worst, they rubber-stamp the charge and it's as if they didn't exist. That's how it looks to me, anyway; can someone explain what I'm missing?
Rex Little at February 15, 2014 12:37 PM
can someone explain what I'm missing? -- Rex Little at February 15, 2014 12:37 PM
Because someone can grab the records from the local pharmacies and see you bought 3 packs of sudafed in a week and declare you a drug dealer from the blindside. And if you're working paycheck to paycheck you have no real recourse.
Jim P. at February 15, 2014 4:57 PM
I agree with Isab. In the unfortunate case you describe, this was due to the machinations of an unscrupulous prosecutor.
I don't know what kind of consequences he could face for his actions, but it was completely against the state's interests. Prosecutors are supposed to come forward with evidence that may serve to exonerate the defendant, as the state has no interest in punishing innocent people. By taking quotes out of context, he deliberately withheld evidence from the grand jury.
And by contrast, the defense represents the defendant, not the state. And he is not obligated to come forward with evidence that might serve to convict his client.
Patrick at February 15, 2014 5:51 PM
Jim P., I'm still not seeing the grand jury angle. Can't they do that anyway with just a warrant?
Rex Little at February 15, 2014 8:00 PM
Okay. Somebody explain the alternative, please.
This is going to get worse, because every time a murderer gets off, every time a thug is put back on the street, the public gets madder - and that is where these juries come from.
Imagine what happens to white men defending themselves when juries are mad about the Zimmerman case.
Radwaste at February 16, 2014 12:53 PM
What I find distressing is the that grand juries (which are provided for in the Constitution) are taking the heat for this. This was obviously a blatant disregard for the rule of law perpetrated by the prosecutor.
Nonetheless, we screaming for the end of all grand juries, instead of placing the blame where it belongs. It might be more helpful if we read our articles more carefully before we decide to throw out the Constitution.
The conclusions reached by this article are just so wrong on so many levels. First, this is a single instance being cited, and in true illogical fashion, despite the centuries of grand juries in this country, it's being used as an argument that grand juries subvert the law.
We're very sorry! The grand jury system is not perfect! That doesn't mean we throw it away.
Worse, it's not even the grand jury's fault. It's plainly a deliberate misconstruction by the prosecutor, but instead of calling for sanctions against the prosecutor (or some similar punishment), we've reached the "obvious" conclusion that grand juries subvert the law.
It's just ridiculous. It's a reaction so hysterical it makes Chicken Little seem rational.
Patrick at February 16, 2014 1:33 PM
Leave a comment