danivon wrote:So, if it's just politics, she'll be shown up in court at just the time to blow her campaign out of the water, right?

Possibly. The other, more likely outcome is she will wait until the case is out of the news and quitely make a deal/drop the charges. I think that is why she overcharged Zimmerman with Murder 2. To force him to accept a deal on a lesser charge. After all, Corey has said in the Christian Fernandez Case (the above referenced 12 yr old) that

(he) will not stand trial, ... nor will he get a life sentence

danivon wrote:Personally I think it's wrong to have directly elected prosecutors, it serves to pervert justice to have someone who leads the decision-making who has to rely on popular support. But that's a problem with your system and a distrust of professionalism in high positions of power, not with this particular prosecutor, isn't it?

I don't necessarily agree with this. Most time, the candidate is honest and does the job he is elected to. I don't think they pander to the public any more then a non-elected prosecutor would do in order to make a name for themself for higher promotion and/or possible political future.

danivon wrote:. How low is the bar for a Grand Jury, and how low should it be?

Well, on the Federal level the bar is infamous crime which the court has defined as being based on nature of punish the may be imposed and that incarceration in a prison or pentitentary attaches infamy to the crime. Therefore, any felony that can result in prison time must include a Grand Jury indictment unless specifically waived by the defendant. I think that is a pretty decent standard.

On that last point, it seems like a ridiculously low bar. How many charges that may bring a custodial sentence are brought in the USA per day?

danivon wrote:On that last point, it seems like a ridiculously low bar. How many charges that may bring a custodial sentence are brought in the USA per day?

There is a difference between custodial sentences and prison sentences. Custodial sentences include things such as county jails and half way houses. Now I don't know how it works in other states but a defendent doesn't go to a prison until the sentence is more then 2 years.

As for how many a day, I have no idea. Since you asked the question, why don't you answer it.

Well, that's a bit odd. Jail = Prison in the UK, no matter who runs it. I'm not sure what the actual difference is as far as you guys are concerned, but if it's one of those American 'it don't count if it's not this bit of the government' things, then it would be usefu to clarify for those of us who live in more consistent systems where your dividing line is...

I asked the question because you were the one proposing that grand juries be used for all such cases where the defendent does not waive the right (and why would they, if they were even aware of the possibility or the possible charges?), I figured it was up to you to back that up with some idea of what the impact would be. Oh, and that's how questions work - if I knew the answer, I'd probably not ask it, I'd just tell you.

Still, in the spirit of furthering the debate and because if I don't it seems you are reluctant to:

This report http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf gives a figure of 1,132,290 felonies being sentenced in 2006. Of which 206,140 were for violent offences.

That's about 4,500 felonies being sentenced on per working day (using 250 working days per year), of which 800 are for violent crimes.

41% of them resulted in prison. A further 28% in jail. Taking just the 'prison' proportion, that's 1800 per day, 300 of which are violent.

Now, I know that some people will be convicted for more than one crime. I'm also aware that some of those may not have a prison sentence as a possibility, although many will (even if most convicts don't get given one). On the other hand, I'm also well aware that the ratio of charge to conviction is quite high.

Now, I'm not sure if that balances out, but surely we are talking about a lot of grand jury sessions.

Also, looking at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juri ... ted_States it seems that most states do not require grand juries, and only half of them actually use them.

I don't believe that you've allowed for the impact of your proposal.

In California grand juries are rarely used. Prelimnary hearings are usually used. Keep in mind that in either case probable cause needs to be found, just in one case it it done by the grand jury and in the other by the judge. Theorectically, I suppose the grand jury was supposed to protect the rights of defendants (since a judge would be more subject to institutional pressure to ok prosecutions) but in reality grand juries tend to rubber-stamp prosecutions. They are also secret and witnesses are noti subject to cross-examination by the defendant. I guess I don't see the concern about the prosecutor not using a grand jury to indict. By the way, felones are defined in the common law as being punishable by more than one year in prison. In California prison is "state prision" for punishment of felons and misdemeanor defendants get sent to the county "jail". Actually, to make it more complicated, they recently passed a law to make many felonies punishable by serving time in jails rather than in prisons (as a result of the Supreme Court decision finding Califonriia jails to be uconstitutionally too crowded)

I don't see really see a problem in having prosecutors elected--the pressure is on them to win trials. It rarely makes sense for them to take on risky trials they can't win.

danivon wrote:This report http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf gives a figure of 1,132,290 felonies being sentenced in 2006. Of which 206,140 were for violent offences.

That's about 4,500 felonies being sentenced on per working day (using 250 working days per year), of which 800 are for violent crimes.

41% of them resulted in prison. A further 28% in jail. Taking just the 'prison' proportion, that's 1800 per day, 300 of which are violent.

Now, I know that some people will be convicted for more than one crime. I'm also aware that some of those may not have a prison sentence as a possibility, although many will (even if most convicts don't get given one). On the other hand, I'm also well aware that the ratio of charge to conviction is quite high.

This is interesting. Thank you for looking it up. Of course it is a little misleading as you said because it does not take the magnitude of multiple charges into account. This can be significant. For example, I am doing some pro bono in Protection from Abuse court next week. I have three cases in which all three defendents have criminal charges pending against them. Each of them have at least 7 charges, 3-4 of which are felonies with possible prision time involved.

Another example is the recent case of Pa State Senator Vince Fumo who was charged and convicted on 137 counts ranging from fraud to conspiracy to filing a false income tax return and his aide who was charged and convicted on 45 similar counts.

danivon wrote:Now, I'm not sure if that balances out, but surely we are talking about a lot of grand jury sessions.
Also, looking at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juri ... ted_States it seems that most states do not require grand juries, and only half of them actually use them.

I don't believe that you've allowed for the impact of your proposal.

Yes it would be a lot of grand jury sessions. And giving the Prosecutor the discretion to use a grand jury or not is more efficient. Normally, I would be for an efficient government, but should it be easier or harder for people to be charged with crimes? And if easier, how easy should it be?

Surely we have to balance rights here. The victims, and potential victims, of crime have an expectation that criminals will be brought to account in a timely manner. Adding hurdles will mean more people getting off on technicalities or because a prosecutor is too cautious, as well as adding to the time.

Yes, I know that often people have multiple charges. Presumably a grand jury would be asked to consider all counts? And as I said, there is a lot of movement the other way with acquittals and charges that were potentially custodial (or prison length) but the sentence was lower. And while you can find extreme cases of multiple charges, an average figure would be a better indicator of the effect than anecdata.