Why on earth did that take so long? Holy smokes. Commie flu or not, this was not a legally difficult nor complicated case. It was as well documented as you couldwish.
ELB wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:54 pm
Why on earth did that take so long? Holy smokes. Commie flu or not, this was not a legally difficult nor complicated case. It was as well documented as you couldwish.
I heard a cop once tell a guy that the wheels of justice move slow.
Grand jury decides not to indict volunteer who shot church shooter dead with some of the best under stress marksmanship we have seen.
DA said they made the right decision.
I’m sort of surprised that this was sent to a grand jury. Is it required?
Legally this invokes Double Jeopardy.
It's a good thing, but costly.
How could it? He hasn't been tried and found not guilty.
IMO, grand juries are a way for a DA to side step accusations for not filing charges at all. This was obviously a justified killing, but send it to a grand jury to avoid the appearance of favoritism.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
There are some benefits for Mr. Wilson by sending it to a GJ. This solidifies the fact it was justified and deters anyone from trying to file wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of the family or friends.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
I did some looking. The Tarrant County website says Tarrant County empanels two grand juries simultaneously, which each serve three days per week for three months, then another pair of GJs are empaneled. 14,000 felony cases per year.
Grand jury decides not to indict volunteer who shot church shooter dead with some of the best under stress marksmanship we have seen.
DA said they made the right decision.
I’m sort of surprised that this was sent to a grand jury. Is it required?
Legally this invokes Double Jeopardy.
It's a good thing, but costly.
Unfortunately, jeopardy does not attach. Some cases are submitted to successive grand juries trying to an indictment.
Chas.
Big Question, Could that be something that can be passed into Texas Law? Where by if a Grand jury fails to indict or no bills an individual they are no longer in jeopardy?
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention
Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here- John Parker
One thing I keep reading on other forums is that "In Texas all homicides have to be taken to a grand jury."
I thought that sounded fishy, and I can find no such requirement in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, nor so far in any other Code. Is there any actual statutory/legal precedent/or other actual rule that says this? All I have found so far is that if the DA wants to prosecute a felony, he has to take it to a grand jury and get an indictment (unlike misdemeanors where he can issue an information and prosecute on his own authority).
ELB wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:53 pm
One thing I keep reading on other forums is that "In Texas all homicides have to be taken to a grand jury."
I thought that sounded fishy, and I can find no such requirement in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, nor so far in any other Code. Is there any actual statutory/legal precedent/or other actual rule that says this? All I have found so far is that if the DA wants to prosecute a felony, he has to take it to a grand jury and get an indictment (unlike misdemeanors where he can issue an information and prosecute on his own authority).
Any idea where this notion comes from?
That's not true. Most homicides are presented to a grand jury, but it's not required. When it's a self-defense case, it's to the benefit of the intended victim to get a "no bill."
Grand jury decides not to indict volunteer who shot church shooter dead with some of the best under stress marksmanship we have seen.
DA said they made the right decision.
I’m sort of surprised that this was sent to a grand jury. Is it required?
Legally this invokes Double Jeopardy.
It's a good thing, but costly.
Unfortunately, jeopardy does not attach. Some cases are submitted to successive grand juries trying to an indictment.
Chas.
Big Question, Could that be something that can be passed into Texas Law? Where by if a Grand jury fails to indict or no bills an individual they are no longer in jeopardy?
I haven't researched to see if there is a constitutional issue involved, but I think the answer is yes. I think it should be a one-shot for the state. I also think jeopardy should attach when a case is tried to a hung jury. The state should get one attempt to convict someone. If they can't convince 12 jurors the defendant is guilty then, in my view, they have failed to meet the burden of proof.
Grand jury decides not to indict volunteer who shot church shooter dead with some of the best under stress marksmanship we have seen.
DA said they made the right decision.
I’m sort of surprised that this was sent to a grand jury. Is it required?
Legally this invokes Double Jeopardy.
It's a good thing, but costly.
Unfortunately, jeopardy does not attach. Some cases are submitted to successive grand juries trying to an indictment.
Chas.
Big Question, Could that be something that can be passed into Texas Law? Where by if a Grand jury fails to indict or no bills an individual they are no longer in jeopardy?
I haven't researched to see if there is a constitutional issue involved, but I think the answer is yes. I think it should be a one-shot for the state. I also think jeopardy should attach when a case is tried to a hung jury. The state should get one attempt to convict someone. If they can't convince 12 jurors the defendant is guilty then, in my view, they have failed to meet the burden of proof.
Chas.
I am not sure that jeopardy attaching at a grand jury is a good thing. The grand jury is to determine probable cause for a trial and if it isn't there, the police may be able to develop it and bring the case back later. Just think about the cold cases where new science shows something and helps make the case. A suspect in an older case might have been no-billed at the time and now DNA proves it up. I am not saying it shouldn't be looked into because I have seen the current system abused (one case where the DA took an off-duty officer involved in a shooting to four grand juries in a row before he got an indictment). I am just saying I have doubts about it and it should be thoroughly checked.
But I am 100% in agreement with the hung jury idea. I have never understood how that concept came about. I understand why they need to convince all 12 to convict, but why does a not guilty verdict have to be unanimous also. I agree with Charles, if they cannot convince all 12, they did not meet the burden and the accused should be found not guilty and the case is over.
Grand jury decides not to indict volunteer who shot church shooter dead with some of the best under stress marksmanship we have seen.
DA said they made the right decision.
I’m sort of surprised that this was sent to a grand jury. Is it required?
Legally this invokes Double Jeopardy.
It's a good thing, but costly.
Unfortunately, jeopardy does not attach. Some cases are submitted to successive grand juries trying to an indictment.
Chas.
Big Question, Could that be something that can be passed into Texas Law? Where by if a Grand jury fails to indict or no bills an individual they are no longer in jeopardy?
I haven't researched to see if there is a constitutional issue involved, but I think the answer is yes. I think it should be a one-shot for the state. I also think jeopardy should attach when a case is tried to a hung jury. The state should get one attempt to convict someone. If they can't convince 12 jurors the defendant is guilty then, in my view, they have failed to meet the burden of proof.
Chas.
I am not sure that jeopardy attaching at a grand jury is a good thing. The grand jury is to determine probable cause for a trial and if it isn't there, the police may be able to develop it and bring the case back later. Just think about the cold cases where new science shows something and helps make the case. A suspect in an older case might have been no-billed at the time and now DNA proves it up. I am not saying it shouldn't be looked into because I have seen the current system abused (one case where the DA took an off-duty officer involved in a shooting to four grand juries in a row before he got an indictment). I am just saying I have doubts about it and it should be thoroughly checked.
But I am 100% in agreement with the hung jury idea. I have never understood how that concept came about. I understand why they need to convince all 12 to convict, but why does a not guilty verdict have to be unanimous also. I agree with Charles, if they cannot convince all 12, they did not meet the burden and the accused should be found not guilty and the case is over.
I was involved in a situation in the early to mid 1990's of self defense. They filed two charges on me for Attempted Murder and Aggravated assault. Both were no billed as self defense by the grand jury. It has been long enough ago that my memory on it is fading but I do believe my attorney suggested I not file to get my gun back because of the risk that some other DA may take notice and try to take it back to the grand jury. I was also told that if I got into another self defense situation there was some risk of the same thing. Hopefully it has been long enough now that the risk of that happening is gone. LOL
ELB wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:53 pm
One thing I keep reading on other forums is that "In Texas all homicides have to be taken to a grand jury."
I thought that sounded fishy, and I can find no such requirement in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, nor so far in any other Code. Is there any actual statutory/legal precedent/or other actual rule that says this? All I have found so far is that if the DA wants to prosecute a felony, he has to take it to a grand jury and get an indictment (unlike misdemeanors where he can issue an information and prosecute on his own authority).
Any idea where this notion comes from?
That's not true. Most homicides are presented to a grand jury, but it's not required. When it's a self-defense case, it's to the benefit of the intended victim to get a "no bill."
Chas.
It's amazing how many people online are saying "Texas requires all homicides to go to a grand jury." So far, none of them have pointed to a state statute backing their claim.
