Should grand jury testimony be sealed forever?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Just a theory, are you a cop?

I was going on 2 years ago..........but that has pretty much NO relevance here as I NOT once went to court as one. Unfortunately, I learned about law the hard way. I ended up in court.






OK...........be back in a few minutes to edit in all the other stuff.

I know it has no relevance here, I wasn't being defamatory or making inferrences, just seemed like it.

So you were gojng to school for it but quit?

People withn the law are often for the law. A smart guy like LAwrocket knows of what I say when I talk of professional courtesy. That's the problem, many people get into the system to make a change, then realize they will suffer if they do and they will prosper if they don't..... many times good people turn schiesty.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

OK, so let's say Lawrocket was charged with beastiality.

Better than being called an attorney, right Clay?

Quote

Then he is convicted and sentenced.

This has exactly nothing to do with a grand jury.

Quote

This is all public record including the following public rendering of his having to register as a sex offender. They include his address, offense level and type and any movements he is making. He is required to inform potential employers and landlords of all this information too,

All the result of my having failed to present a defense. Hopefully, that ewe was good enough to be worth it.

Quote

but the GJ hearing is sealed

Yep. Would it make me register a second time? Maybe someone testified to the grand jury that I had sex with a ram instead of a sheep, but that could not be correlated with any evidence. So, why should that be part of the public record? I've already been convicted, and no legal consequence comes from a grand jury indictment, short of a recod of being charged with a crime.

Quote

Lawyers enjoy having a little edge over other people; they get preference thru their relationships with judges and other prosecutors. There is a professional courtesy attitude amongst lawyers that affords them a free ride in many cases, so they want to defend teh system.

Much like boxers, who may be best friends outside the ring, but when the bell rings will beat the shit out of each other.

Boxers don't always get along. There are other lawyers I don't like because of their tactics and attitude. There is a judge before whom I shall not appear in any substantive hearing. I extend professional courtesy to those deserving of it, and will publically disrespect them at times.

I am not a zealous advocate of "the system." The are the rules that I am sworn to operate within. However, I can see the logic in much that happens. IT's why I value procedure over substance - so long as a person has notice and an opportunity to be fairly heard, I will operate within those constructs.

See how a grand jury does not provide notice or an opportunity to be heard? To me that's bad.

If grand jury testimony has 150 items testified to, and I only have ten of those presented to me to defend in court, I have been denied of my chance to defend myself.

It is THAT simple.

Quote

Face it, you make your living from the system,

I don't deny it. To do so would be to strain my credibility. Unfortuantely for many, my word means a lot.

Quote

the system is crooked,

Yes, parts of it. Especially prosecutors, in my humble opinion.

Quote

but your living, as with most people, is more important than the rectification of the system.

Now, you may privately grouse to others about this, in which point I would be unable to defend myself. In fact, you may be willing to publish such statements after I die, wherein I would be unable to present evidence to the contrary. If I am somehow unable to present evidence to the contrary, you and others who wish to state such feelings may wish to do so, much like unsealing grand jury testimony would do.

On the other hand, you have presented a statement that I think I shoul defend. And in my defense, I will call bullshit. As you can see, I myself had lost some faith in the system due to the caprice of many in charge of it.

It turns out I want to rectify the system. It turns out that I want to do some good with it. It so happens I don't want to always be "paid fighter."

Oh, yeah! I have directly and unequivocably stated my problems with "unethical prosecutors." In fact, I've even openly posted of prosecutors being on my bad side. Heck, I publically put them on my "shit list."

Quote

Oh, I get it, they protect lying prosecutors.

Or, even more importantly, innocent people who already defended themselves. I am not in the business of protecting prosecutors. I don't do criminal work. Why would I protect them?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

We can't prove it because the GJ records are sealed.

I'd tell you to hire a better investigator then. I kind of see what you are saying. Most of my legal experience was with the "Military justice system." In place of the GJ they have an "Article 32" hearing. It serves somewhat the same purpose but the advantage is.........the defendant is present and gets to defend himself. There are some whacky rules in that world though. Some good........some bad.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

So you were gojng to school for it but quit?

No..........I was a Federal Law Enforcement Officer for 2 years. Got tired of the bullshit management and took another job. Now I am a "contractor" to Fed Law Enforcement. It's nicer over here.

Quote

People withn the law are often for the law.

The law is usually fine. Relatively clear cut........it's when you inject people into the system that things go to shit.

Quote

A smart guy like LAwrocket knows of what I say when I talk of professional courtesy.

I have seen it many times. I can tell you that it DOES not always work for cops though. I got burned once because I was involved in a personal case and had NO idea that the judge despised cops. I have no idea why.........but she shit all over me when I walked into that court room.

Quote

That's the problem, many people get into the system to make a change, then realize they will suffer if they do and they will prosper if they don't..... many times good people turn schiesty.

There's a certain amount of that. All too often I have seen people just be plain lazy. I watched a woman charged with a class A felony facing a max of 15-25 years in prison walk into court........because the prosecutor was lazy and wanted to go home he plea bargained it to a class D.........no conviction entered and a couple years probation. I had to RUN out of the court room so I wouldn't beat that guys ass! There are still MANY good people out there though. You can find them if you look hard enough.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Where did I ask why trials are public?

Ummm.........right here.

Quote

then explain how trials where the defendnat is acquitted of major crimes is considered public forever.

That is not asking if trials are public record, that is asking for an EXPLANATION of why trials resulting in acquittals ends up being public [place into context of argument at that point] record when GJ records are sealed for both acquittals and convictions. If it's about defending the innocent, then why is it that trials are public for innocent people.

I wish you would answer the questions instead of spin them. Again, why seal all GJ records to supposedly defend the innocent while releasing trial records of innocent people?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I’m unclear as to the motive for which the system does this.

Answered that one right here.

Quote

there may have been evidence presented to the Grand Jury that was thrown out in pre trial or evidentury hearings. The rules of evidence are completely differen't for GJ and trial.

And I answered that by saying that mnay or most of these issues ARE the trial record by way of pretrial motions to include/exclude certain evidence. Appeals are founded thru this and any def lawyer worth his salt will file all kinds of evidentiary motions that he can later use in appeals. So yes, the evidence still ends up in the pre-trial/trial record, just not admitted at trial but is public for all to see.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I inferred that the indictment was handed down, as in 98% of cases from a GJ. So with that, when there is a GJ, indictment and trial, the GJ is all part of this arduous sequence of events.

You just said "98%" of cases. You are acting like it is written into law that an indictment WILL be handed down. That's not the case. So........in FACT.....they are completely seperate entities.



Oh........BTW..........just a theory. Are you a law student?

No, but statistically it is up around 98%. It's considered a rubber stamp.

Quote

You are acting like it is written into law that an indictment WILL be handed down.

It's highly rare that that isn't case where an indictment won't be handed down. Then they just submit again, and again and again... if not, a direct file and mini trial.

Quote

So........in FACT.....they are completely seperate entities

They, being GJ and trial. Seperate, but hust as seperate as the exit and the pull; there is a sequence and one can;t happen w/o the other.

Not a law student, just an interest in the law.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

that is asking for an EXPLANATION of why trials resulting in acquittals ends up being public

Cheese and Rice.........follow the dots........ It doesn't matter what the result is. Criminal Trials are public record. Period. Why.......because "The People" are being represented. We went over this once already. I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I appreciate your input, but since many of these evidentiary items are included in the court transcripts, I fail to see any advantage in sealing GJ transcripts.

I don't know how to put this in any more of a plain way. The evidence was NOT introduced in the trial. As in to the trial jury. So........the defendant NEVER had an opportunity to defend himself against that evidence except for when his attorney got it thrown out for whatever reason. If the GJ files are made public........he now has to defend himself in the "Court of Public Opinion." If that doesn't convince you of why they are sealed.......nothing will and my part of this conversation is done.

Quote

I don't know how to put this in any more of a plain way.

Save your semantics

Quote

The evidence was NOT introduced in the trial.

You don't knwo what is introduced or not. In fact, if it isn't introduced, there is probably a reason for it: IT'S A LIE, A FABRICATION ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTOR, this is why it might not be entered into evidence and why I want to know about it.

Quote

So........the defendant NEVER had an opportunity to defend himself against that evidence except for when his attorney got it thrown out for whatever reason.

You're assuming it was ever introduced at trial. My contention is that it wouldn't be due to it being totla BS and the prosecutor just used it at GJ to get an indictment. GET IT? The prosecutor has to grease the case thru the GJ to get it to trial, so they lie knowing they are forever protected by GJ laws. GET IT?

Quote

If the GJ files are made public........he now has to defend himself in the "Court of Public Opinion."

If you are a defendant facing a crime of this magnitude, higher class felonies, I really, really doubt you give a shit what anyone thinks of you. And as for biasing juries, the media, oh the criminal-loving liberal media (sarcasm) disseminates that, so you have nothing new to worry about.

I know, teh system is beautiful, defends cops, prosecutors and judges, or at least significantly reduces their sentences, so GJ records s/b sealed to defend the liars who defend the real scum of society. No conspiracy since it is wrotten into rule, just good ole Amereican sleezy protocol.

Quote

If that doesn't convince you of why they are sealed.......nothing will and my part of this conversation is done.

YOU HAVE STILL FAILED TO ANSWER WHY IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM TO DISCLOSE GJ RECORDS FOR CONVICTED PEOPLE.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

We can't prove it because the GJ records are sealed.

I'd tell you to hire a better investigator then. I kind of see what you are saying. Most of my legal experience was with the "Military justice system." In place of the GJ they have an "Article 32" hearing. It serves somewhat the same purpose but the advantage is.........the defendant is present and gets to defend himself. There are some whacky rules in that world though. Some good........some bad.

I didn't know that, the fucking UCMinjustice has a higher standard of justice than the civilian model in some realm? Holly fuck!!!

As for a better investigator, for whom, the prosecutor? What I'm talking about here is the access for the public to be able to see how these cases are run. FOI Act allows the public some access, why not GJ? The harm is not just to defendants, but to teh public.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

As for a better investigator, for whom, the prosecutor?

No.......the defense. If someone is charged with a major felony and doesn't have their own investigator........they are screwed. The police gathered the evidence. They "work for" the prosecutor. Not the defendant. It's prudent to have your own highly qualified investigator to do an IMPARTIAL investigation. Of course........they don't come cheap.

Quote

You don't knwo what is introduced or not.

And as a defendant.........I don't care. If it isn't being used against me.......Who cares?

Quote

In fact, if it isn't introduced, there is probably a reason for it: IT'S A LIE, A FABRICATION ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTOR, this is why it might not be entered into evidence and why I want to know about it.

Doubtful. 99% of the time evidence is not entered it's because it's weak. The reasons for this could be many. It could have been gathered in a nefarious manner. Maybe not totally illegal but the prosecutor doesn't want to fight the battle and give the defense any leverage. He may use it to try and get an indictment but he knows it'll get thrashed in court. There are MILLIONS of reasons why a prosecutor would decide AGAINST using a piece of evidence OTHER than he lied.

Quote

My contention is that it wouldn't be due to it being totla BS and the prosecutor just used it at GJ to get an indictment. GET IT?

Once again........I doubt a prosecutor is just going to flat out MAKE UP some evidence to get an indictment. He may very well use it at the GJ knowing that it'll never make it to trial. That's just part of the "game." It's the way the system works.

Quote

I really, really doubt you give a shit what anyone thinks of you.

Unless you are independantly wealthy and can just mind your own business for the rest of your life I think you WOULD care. You have to have a life after all this legal trouble is over right? Don't you have to work and live still?

Quote

YOU HAVE STILL FAILED TO ANSWER WHY IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM TO DISCLOSE GJ RECORDS FOR CONVICTED PEOPLE.

Yeah...........I have..........

Quote

So........the defendant NEVER had an opportunity to defend himself against that evidence except for when his attorney got it thrown out for whatever reason. If the GJ files are made public........he now has to defend himself in the "Court of Public Opinion."

I'm not arguing right or wrong. I'm telling you that's why it is the way it is.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Better than being called an attorney, right Clay?

Well..........you know what 1000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean are right?

[Nightingale 0]

If you release GJ testimony after a conviction, and then something comes to light and the original verdict is thrown out, you've just potentially contaminated the entire jury pool with inadmissable evidence.

Take a high profile case... Scott Peterson, for example, and let's play pretend... If there had been a grand jury indictment in this case (there wasn't), and the grand jury heard testimony that Scott Peterson had a violent personality, was rumored to have participated in two other unrelated murders, and a neighbor thinks he might have beaten up his mother, none of that would be admissible in a trial. It all violates the rules of evidence. But, hearsay and a lot of other stuff is admissible to a grand jury.

So, say Mr. Peterson is indicted and convicted. The grand jury testimony is released, and is all over national news. The entire USA believes Scott Peterson is a Really Bad Guy.

Two years later, the prosecutor is charged with prosecutorial misconduct, the officers admit to lying on the stand (Rampart Scandal, anyone?) and certain important evidence is found to have been planted or fabricated. At this point, it's realized that the prosecution did not, in fact, prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Mr. Peterson is granted a new trial. The removal of the tainted evidence and testimony hasn't proved that Mr. Peterson could not have committed the crime (no exoneration by other DNA), but there isn't any evidence anymore to prove that he did.

Now, remember, the entire USA has heard about Scott Peterson participating in two other murders, beating up his mother, and generally being violent in nature. These are the people that are going to be interviewed to participate on the next jury. They've heard inadmissible evidence, and the danger here is that they may convict him again, not on the current evidence, but on the basis of thinking he's a Really Bad Guy and belongs in jail, whether or not he really did commit the murder in question... because, after all, he's a violent guy who kills people and beats up old ladies. There's a reason we don't allow juries to hear this kind of testimony... but in this case, they heard it on the nightly news. The prosecution doesn't have to do much, because the media has already made their case for them. He's convicted again, dies in prison, and thirty years later, the murder is linked to a serial killer, and Mr. Peterson is exonerated.

Testimony in front of a court, even a grand jury, is given a lot more weight than some wacko on the evening news chatting about his buddy being violent. If a reporter tells the public what official court documents and transcripts say, the public will give that more credence than they would information that isn't "official."

[Andy9o8 2]

According to FAQ's published by the American Bar Association:

Why are grand jury proceedings secret?
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding. Secrecy was originally designed to protect the grand jurors from improper pressures. The modern justifications are to prevent the escape of people whose indictment may be contemplated, to ensure that the grand jury is free to deliberate without outside pressure, to prevent subornation of perjury or witness tampering prior to a subsequent trial, to encourage people with information about a crime to speak freely, and to protect the innocent accused from disclosure of the fact that he or she was under investigation.


Why can a grand jury witness talk about his or her testimony?
In the federal courts, the witness is not sworn to secrecy, and may disclose whatever he or she wishes to whomever he or she wishes. The witness exemption was adopted in part because it was thought that requiring witness secrecy was unrealistic and unenforceable, and in part to allow the witness to rebut rumors concerning his or her testimony. There is a basic revulsion in the United States about secret testimony.


Are there any other exceptions to grand jury secrecy?
At one time, the defendant in a criminal trial was never given access to the grand jury testimony that resulted in the indictment. By the 1980s, in most jurisdictions, if a witness who testified before the grand jury was called to testify at the eventual trial, the defendant was given a copy of that witness's grand jury testimony to use for possible impeachment. Some jurisdictions also give the defendant a list of everyone who testified before the grand jury, and several give the defendant a full transcript of all relevant grand jury testimony. In the federal system, no such list is provided, and the grand jury transcripts of only those persons who testify on behalf of the prosecutor at trial are given to the defendant.