Have you ever served on a grand jury? There is no way that a jury could rule on a 180 cases an hour. That is 3 cases per minute. What are you talking about?
Have you ever served on a grand jury? There is no way that a jury could rule on a 180 cases an hour. That is 3 cases per minute. What are you talking about?
Apparently flyingron is referring to a case that was publicized in his area or elsewhere that illustrates the potential inattentiveness of a Grand Jury by highlighting one that cleared an absurd number of cases, clearly devoting no time at all to consideration. The point being that grand juries can be fair or unfair, and they vary a great deal by state and jurisdiction.
Is this the article you are referring to?
I have had 2 experiences with a grand jury. I served on a county jury for I don't remember how many weeks (a long time) back in the 1980's and I had to appear as a witness before another.
Serving on the jury was definitely an eye-opening experience. On the one hand, the grand jury was used to punish (indicts) some for political reasons and on the other hand, to exonerate those that have committed crimes (the police for example). And then there are routine cases where a person has committed a crime and we handed up the bill to indict.
The case we heard to punish (referred to above) was about a guy who was indicted for check fraud. I voted no bill but the prosecutor got the votes. This guy, on a Friday after work, bought a TV and wrote a check for the purchase. He knew that he did not have the funds to cover the purchase in his checking account but he intended to deposit his paycheck on his way home. He didn't make it to the bank in time. The bank was closed. The check bounced before he could deposit his paycheck and have the funds cleared.
After hearing the facts from the prosecutor and being instructed on the law and hearing that the prosecutor wanted an indictment, the jury handed up the bill. Technically speaking, writing a check when you know you don't have the funds in the account is check fraud. But where was the intent to defraud or to commit a crime. The guy made good on the check and yet has to stand trial.
The other case was to indict two police officers that brutally beat an underage teenager for being on the street after a probation curfew. We heard testimony over several weeks. The evidence was pretty heavy against them. They did beat this kid bloody, they did not notify his parents that he was in jail for over 24 hours, and they throw away all his bloody clothing . But the prosecutor downplayed the evidence and in the end, the jury voted no bill because the prosecutor made it clear that he did not want the bill.
The people that serve on these grand juries are ordinary people that don't know much about the law. They don't think for themselves and go with the what the prosecutor wants. Hence, you can indict a ham sandwich.
Yep, the York, SC case is the one I'm thinking about. It's just down the road here. While the indictiment is largely perfunctory, it's still not much of a presentation if it takes under a minute to present and receive a true bill. It takes longer for the judges to dismiss traffic cases that the defendant FTAs on.
Just based on what you posted, I'd have voted to indict, too. Settling up what was owed after the fact does not cure the criminal act any more than returning stolen items to a store would cure shoplifting. As for his intent, I think his intent was shown by writing a check he knew he didn't have the funds in the account to cover. That's enough to provide the probable cause needed for indictment. Grand jury is not there to decide guilt, just probable cause. I'd leave it to the jury to decide if they want to buy his story that he really didn't intend to write a bad check. That's what trials are for.