I was wondering why the prosecutors never said “84 searches for chloroform” during their closing argument…..If they want to sanction Jose Baez for his “trial by ambush” tactics, then, meh, but this actually deserves attention. Yes, I’m talking to you Nancy Grace! A witness actually reveals to the State that he was wrong but the prosecutors ignore their duty to inform the Defense, or the Jury? I wonder what the no-nonsense Judge is going to do about this? Will HLN talk about this for 28 hours? Nothing and nope.
I guess the next thing we’ll be hearing is that the prosecutors are being indicted for not disclosing this exculpatory evidence?
Just kidding. I’ve never seen it once, and don’t expect to in my lifetime. I read a lot and follow many, many trials in this state that interest me. And I have to tell you that I believe the last truly honest DA who cared about justice rather than wins was John Segrest of McLennan county. He was voted out of office back in 2009 when the law enforcement unions and organizations spoke out against him for refusing to file too many cases brought to him by local police.
Segrest was actually prosecuting cases brought to them at about the same rate as other counties overall, but in Waco prosecutors were much more likely to refuse the case up front instead of filing a bad case and dismissing it months down the line after the county has paid for jail costs, indigent defense, coerced defendants into accepting a plea, or forced the defendant to spend unnecessary money for counsel.
I realize there were probably many defense attorneys also who were happy to see him go as this increased their bottom line. But, as someone whose interests lie totally in seeing justice done, I believe Texas’ criminal justice system lost one of its greatest when the voters listened to the hype of law enforcement instead of using sound judgment.
Then, what is the real deal on “lesser includes”? If the DA refuses to include all of the elements of the crime to the Grand Jury, then the indictment returned is for a higher crime that it would have been if all evidence favorable to the defendant had been presented “at the bar”. Is it always a must do, or does the system have carte blanch? As a layman, it confuses me.
A grand jury will indict anyone for just about anything at the prosecutor’s request. The probable cause determination doesn’t take into account the evidence favorable to the accused.
“A grand jury will indict anyone for just about anything at the prosecutor’s request.”
Hence my confusion. I didn’t think they could. If I stole a pack of bubble gum, the prosecutor couldn’t request grand larceny, right? Sure, something was stolen. That is larceny no doubt. But the fact that the theft amounted to 25 cents would properly have to be presented to the Grand Jury to return the correct indictment, according to existing statutes… in a fair world, I guess. It is difficult for a layman to comprehend what you guys have to deal with.
If you get a chance, just to be clear; *a person is arrested, *photographed & sometimes it gets shown to a crime victim, *placed in a line-up and positively I.D., *arraigned, *interviews and obtains what’s perceived to be a CDL, *voir dire proceedings commence, *first day of trial.
Q. At what point does the Grand Jury come in & would there be a record of it in the Case Files?
Q. The ADA introduces a State’s Exhibit (firearm, grenade or bazooka) in opening having nothing to do with the case, would it be wise for the CDL to immediately speak up and object, call for a mistrial, or shut up & plea bargain at lunch? Thanks for your consideration.
I was wondering why the prosecutors never said “84 searches for chloroform” during their closing argument…..If they want to sanction Jose Baez for his “trial by ambush” tactics, then, meh, but this actually deserves attention. Yes, I’m talking to you Nancy Grace! A witness actually reveals to the State that he was wrong but the prosecutors ignore their duty to inform the Defense, or the Jury? I wonder what the no-nonsense Judge is going to do about this? Will HLN talk about this for 28 hours? Nothing and nope.
Good point. He probably was more concerned with CYA than helping the defense.
I dunno. Lots of people think prosecutors wear white hats.
I guess the next thing we’ll be hearing is that the prosecutors are being indicted for not disclosing this exculpatory evidence?
Just kidding. I’ve never seen it once, and don’t expect to in my lifetime. I read a lot and follow many, many trials in this state that interest me. And I have to tell you that I believe the last truly honest DA who cared about justice rather than wins was John Segrest of McLennan county. He was voted out of office back in 2009 when the law enforcement unions and organizations spoke out against him for refusing to file too many cases brought to him by local police.
Segrest was actually prosecuting cases brought to them at about the same rate as other counties overall, but in Waco prosecutors were much more likely to refuse the case up front instead of filing a bad case and dismissing it months down the line after the county has paid for jail costs, indigent defense, coerced defendants into accepting a plea, or forced the defendant to spend unnecessary money for counsel.
I realize there were probably many defense attorneys also who were happy to see him go as this increased their bottom line. But, as someone whose interests lie totally in seeing justice done, I believe Texas’ criminal justice system lost one of its greatest when the voters listened to the hype of law enforcement instead of using sound judgment.
He could have also immediately written the judge – so that the judge would be obliged to raise it with parties.
No good. I’ve known too many judges.
Then, what is the real deal on “lesser includes”? If the DA refuses to include all of the elements of the crime to the Grand Jury, then the indictment returned is for a higher crime that it would have been if all evidence favorable to the defendant had been presented “at the bar”. Is it always a must do, or does the system have carte blanch? As a layman, it confuses me.
Your question doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
A grand jury will indict anyone for just about anything at the prosecutor’s request. The probable cause determination doesn’t take into account the evidence favorable to the accused.
“A grand jury will indict anyone for just about anything at the prosecutor’s request.”
Hence my confusion. I didn’t think they could. If I stole a pack of bubble gum, the prosecutor couldn’t request grand larceny, right? Sure, something was stolen. That is larceny no doubt. But the fact that the theft amounted to 25 cents would properly have to be presented to the Grand Jury to return the correct indictment, according to existing statutes… in a fair world, I guess. It is difficult for a layman to comprehend what you guys have to deal with.
There would be nothing but conscience (his or his boss’s) to stop the prosecutor from doing just that.
Mr. B., good-morning sir.
If you get a chance, just to be clear; *a person is arrested, *photographed & sometimes it gets shown to a crime victim, *placed in a line-up and positively I.D., *arraigned, *interviews and obtains what’s perceived to be a CDL, *voir dire proceedings commence, *first day of trial.
Q. At what point does the Grand Jury come in & would there be a record of it in the Case Files?
Q. The ADA introduces a State’s Exhibit (firearm, grenade or bazooka) in opening having nothing to do with the case, would it be wise for the CDL to immediately speak up and object, call for a mistrial, or shut up & plea bargain at lunch? Thanks for your consideration.