TexasCHLforum.com

I guess my point is that like all systems, our legal system is not perfect. However, the grand jury system ensures that the evidence is examined by disinterested citizens twice.

In most countries, when the prosecutor files charges, the defendant goes straight to a trial. In many countries, there's no jury at all, or only for the most serious crimes.

- Jim

That's a terrible experience. IMHO, the DA should have gone to prison for corruption.

I guess that's how things were many years ago. The flip side, back then, was that guilty people were no-billed because of their political connections or racial aspects of the case.

My gut feeling is that there is more "daylight" now and less opportunity for prosecutors to pack grand juries. The courts have ruled that grand juries must represent a cross-section of the community.

However, do you disagree that the grand jury is pretty much limited to the evidence that the prosecutor presents? If the prosecutor or police are willing to sign false affidavits and perjure themselves, how can the grand jury members know? There is no defense attorney at that stage.

Here's a case where the grand jury no-billed a guy who seemed at first to be guilty:
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 16#p265828" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Since a defense attorney's job is to get his client's case dropped at every step in the process, he could be excused for thinking that.

You would have to find some case where the evidence against the defendant did not meet the standard of probable cause, but the grand jury indicted anyway.

False accusations are usually not the fault of the grand jury. They are the fault of contaminated or falsified evidence or withholding exculpatory evidence. Usually the police or an assistant prosecutor is at fault there.

- Jim

As I said earlier, my guess is that they will offer a misdemeanor plea bargain as a warning.

DAs have to balance the prosecution of publicly known crimes with their own caseload and budget, and the overall interest of justice.

- Jim

It happened Tuesday and the DA's office only had three days to think about it. Google News shows nothing new.

I would expect it to take a month for the police report to be wrapped up, and then if the DA wants to prosecute as a felony, at least another month to get an indictment. That would be quick compared to some cases that I have followed.

Unless someone here lives in Terrell and keeps his ear to the ground, we will probably never know what happens.

- Jim

You are right. Almost any physical contact, verbal threat, or display of what might be a weapon turns theft into robbery.

However, that is not what the thief was initially charged with, and the police spokesman made a point of calling the crime theft.

Most retail stores have video cameras and recorders, so I would expect investigators to press the most serious charge that they can.

The following is pure speculation, but I can imagine the clerk digging a hole for herself something like this:

Police: What happened?
Clerk: He came into the store and looked around. I saw him grab a bottle of Hennessey from the floor display and run out the door.
P: How close did he come to you?
C: About 10 feet.
P: Did he assault you or touch you in any way?
C: No.
P: Did he say anything to you?
C: No.
P: Did he display a weapon?
C: No.
P: Why did you shoot him?
C: He needed shootin'.

- Jim

I have to point out that in this case, the store clerk did not miss the vehicle.

Having shot skeet and trap, where you have to hit within a yard of a moving object, I would never try to fire a handgun or rifle at a vehicle that way.

Your question points out how you should be very careful about intervening in situations where you are not the target of an attack.

- Jim

I was thinking of Mr. DeLay. Also, several self-defense shootings have been no-billed multiple times, when the prosecutor obviously wanted a conviction.

BTW, when I said that most defendants are guilty, I was referring to crimes like burglary, robbery, rape, and drug dealing. There is no legal justification for these acts, so if the elements of the offense can be proven, the grand jury must return an indictment.

In the case of a self-defense shooting, there is a subjective question about whether the defender meets the standard of "reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary." In that case, the prosecutor can think that the use of force was not justified; but a couple of mugging and rape victims on the grand jury can have a different opinion.

- Jim

The reason that I said the grand jury would indict in this case is that the store clerk, according to the news report, clearly committed the offense of aggravated assault.

You (ninemm) are correct that the prosecutor has a great deal of influence over grand juries. However, prosecutors do not always get indictments. I don't know (and can't find) statistics on how often state grand juries return a no bill, but I can remember some prominent cases where prosecutors failed on multiple attempts to get an indictment.

There are also many attempts to get indictments that are not made public, such as in organized crime cases. Those efforts are kept secret while investigators continue to develop evidence.

You also have to keep in mind that most people who are charged with felonies are guilty. The state may ultimately fail to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, or the case may be dismissed for technical reasons, but there are nearly always enough facts to find probable cause.

- Jim

I remember when liquor stores kept everything except heavy cases behind the counter. You had to ask the clerk for whatever you wanted. It's still that way in some states -- the store cannot legally put booze where someone can touch it without having their age verified.

Stores went to open layouts because they increase sales and reduce manpower. Shoplifting is the price that they pay for that.

They really ought to keep the expensive stuff behind the counter. It wouldn't hurt to have a remote door lock, either.

Regardless of the ethical question of whether you should use deadly force to recover something of minor value, it's clear that in Texas today, doing so may cost you a lot of money and heartburn.

In most states, there would be no question at all about this incident being charged as aggravated assault or deadly conduct.

- Jim

The cop stated correctly that you cannot legally use deadly force to prevent simple theft in the day time.

PC 9.42 contains three clauses with the word and between them. This case, as reported, does not meet all three conditions.

It's also clear that the police do not like people shooting at fleeing vehicles. IMHO, that is a very dangerous thing to do, both because you can inadvertently hit a bystander or cause significant property damage, and because a wounded driver might have a serious collision.

With felony charges, you have to remember that arrest is just the first step. The DA has to decide whether to prosecute, and then get an indictment from the grand jury (which he probably would in this case).

I would be surprised if this case was not resolved with a misdemeanor plea.

- Jim