In addition, the prosecutors' powers need to be curtailed. Such crimes should always be charged, regardless of what the prosecutor wants. If there is doubt, bring in an outside prosecutor like the article suggests.
The English jurist Lord Hewart said it best: 'Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCar...
But there almost always is in reality, if there's a reasonable suspect. The only exception seems to be with law enforcement officers.
Often it never makes it that far. In many self-defense cases involving non-police civilians the district attorney will decide that no crime was committed and that will be the end of it.
One quick example from the top of a google search: http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/janitor-wont-be-charged-i...
Not to mention plenty already "have their financial lives destroyed" through the Civil Forfeiture law.
At the state level it's much higher 3-4%. You can say it's a rubber stamp, but in practice the average is raised by the fact that most criminal cases are slam dunk (that kilo of cocaine found in the accused's car is almost certainly his). And the bar for an indictment is relatively low, just probable cause. It'd be pretty uncomfortable if prosecuto so we're bringing lots of cases where they don't even have enough evidence to convince 3/4 of a grand jury there is probable cause.
[1] The distinction is relevant because federal and state prosecutors handle totally different sorts of crimes.
That goes doubly when the killer is a law enforcement officer. If we want to fix the current problems with policing in America, the only way to do that is to hold LEOs to higher standards than everyone else (and ideally stiffer penalties).
You're not the first person I've seen suggest this, and I'm baffled by the logic.
Not that it changes the point of your argument, just guessing where the motivation for that statement comes from.
Grand Juries have an especially hard time finding anything wrong with police conduct and are routinely used to "legitimize" questionable police activity.
I'm not ready to agree to eliminating them but it isn't hard to understand why someone might throw it out there as an idea.
No, it doesn't, because eliminating grand juries does not eliminate the gate to a full trial; criminal cases in which that function is not served by the one-sided, prosecution-controlled grand jury process in which the target is not entitled to have representation, cross-examine witnesses or challenge evidence, present evidence, or even be informed that the process is taking place have the function served instead by a preliminary hearing in which the defendant is entitled to all of those things.
The grand jury indictment as an alternative to the preliminary hearing otherwise used is not a safeguard for the accused, it is a means by which the society at large (represented by the grand jury selected from among them rather than the judge handling a preliminary hearing) that the actions of the prosecutor in response to serious crimes are well-directed, it trades away protection of the accused for protection of societal interest in oversight of the executive branch by the public.
> You're not the first person I've seen suggest this, and I'm baffled by the logic.
You seem to think that the alternative to the grand jury is no procedural gateway between accusation and trial, which is not the case. Its understandable that, under that misapprehension, the idea that removing the grand jury would lessen the power of prosecutors would be baffling, because it misses the alternative that actually exists and is, in fact, used for those cases where grand jury indictment is not.
We hear that cases involving police killings get treated differently in an effort to have more transparency, or perhaps to allow grand juries in these cases to make a "more informed" decision. I don't buy this anymore. It doesn't provide more transparency, it plants doubt in a group that isn't supposed to be wrestling with any notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I served on a high-profile grand jury case once. I came away deeply disillusioned with how this process is said to work, and how it actually works.
This is an odd statement. It's well known that prosecutors have much greater latitude in what they can present as evidence AND the hurdle for proceeding with criminal charges is much lower.
The other option is to leave decisions to charge somebody up to the prosecutors themselves. You think that will produce a better outcome? I would imagine you'd see a lot more politically motivated prosecutions.
How often do grand juries defy the prosecutor's wishes?
I certainly agree that a check on prosecutorial discretion is badly needed. But the grand jury system doesn't seem to be providing it.
The high rate of indictments, of course, doesn't prove that the grand jury system doesn't act as a check on prosecutorial discretion. An AMA study found that the largest health insurers reject 2.7-6.8% of all claims: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/.... Does the low rate of denials indicate that insurers' claim processes are an inadequate check on fraudulent claims? By your reasoning, it does.
Still, the "ham sandwich" comment disturbs me. Do you think it has no basis in reality? Considering the emphasis we put on adversarial proceedings in this country, does it not seem odd and potentially problematic that grand juries hear only one side?
Speaking from experience I can tell you that high-profile indictments are often discussed and decided before the indictment is presented, outside the juror's room.
And finally, we're having a little crisis currently in Harris county over the threatening of a witness by a grand jury foreman who was also a retired police officer, serving on a grand jury that was deciding to indict a man for the murder of another police officer.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/grand-jury-system-tex...
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/15/time-ditch-key-man-gr...
How can you have a trial with no one prosecuting?
The decision to charge essentially is up to the prosecutor; the grand jury process for felonies essentially plays an analogous role to the preliminary hearing for misdemeanors, in that it establishes probable cause and allows the case to continue. The difference is that, while felonies are notionally more serious crimes with more at risk, defendants actually have the right to be represented at present evidence at preliminary hearings, while they are entitled to neither for grand jury proceedings. (And that preliminary hearings are before a judge, rather than a grand jury.)
So, the alternative to grand juries doesn't give prosecutors more power, it gives them less. But it still doesn't reduce their ability to refrain prosecuting offenses. You can't do that unless you do something like allow court-appointed independent prosecutors on a citizen complaint with sufficient evidence where the public prosecutor declines to prosecute.
I don't think I understand the two. Grand juries can tell prosecutors "no", but if you remove them it gives prosecutors less power?
In general, criminal trials require establishing probable cause to proceed to a full trial. There are two methods of doing this: indictment by a grand jury, or preliminary hearing before a judge.
In the former, the prosecutor presents evidence with no opposition. In the latter, the defendant is entitled to representation, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present their own evidence.