pull down to refresh
236 sats \ 12 replies \ @siggy47 11 Jan \ on: Operators of Cryptocurrency Mixers Charged with Money Laundering Politics_And_Law
I went on my little rant without answering your question. Yes, indictments are required to try a defendant on felony charges in US courts. There are two kinds of juries, a grand jury and a petit jury. Grand juries are required to get an indictment. Typically 12 of 23 jurors must vote to indict. It is a closed session and only the prosecution gets to present evidence. Sol Wachtler, a famous court of appeals judge from New York, famously said that a New York grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, or some thing like that. Petit juries are the more familiar trial juries.
Thanks! I didn't know civilian juries were involved in other stages of the judicial system. From wikipedia:
Unlike a petit jury, which resolves a particular civil or criminal case, a grand jury (typically having twelve to twenty-three members) serves as a group for a sustained period of time in all or many of the cases that come up in the jurisdiction, generally under the supervision of a federal U.S. attorney, a county district attorney, or a state attorney-general, and hears evidence ex parte (i.e. without suspect or person of interest involvement in the proceedings).
On the face of it this sounds great to have sieves of civilians preventing bogus indictments, but as you say, "only the prosecution presents":
They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced.
I suppose it mostly prevents supremely incompetent indictments from proceeding. Otherwise, they must mostly pass through. Oh! It says this explicitly in the history section:
The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions.
I should learn more about legal theory. As hamstrung as the whole thing seems, there's probably lots of to learn about humans cooperating and contending.
reply
Once or twice in my career I decided to have my client testify before a grand jury. I was only allowed to sit there as he told his story, then listen to the prosecutor cross examine him. I could not speak. I was only allowed to sit there. It is very unusual to have a defendant testify and waive his right to remain silent, and only done when the defendant is articulate and has a great defense, and when avoiding an indictment is important. It was a dark and scary place. I felt vulnerable, and I'm sure my clients felt worse.
reply
I was able to find a few books on law philosophy that cross over with game theory and economics.
I'm most excited about these two:
reply
reply
reply
Have you read much of or about this guy:?