Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
I'm here about the title.
Grand jury.
Yes, that's how this works.
Now, bear in mind, I'm only here about the part of this from the title that I quoted. For anyone outraged by that part, no.
The way this works:
A matter is put before a grand jury. Only evidence submitted is by the prosecutor. Nothing from the defense. The standard of evidence is "probable cause", which is a very very low standard. Basically, unless someone screwed something up massively, there will almost always be sufficient probable cause for a case to go forward.
If probable cause is indeed found, the case will proceed. It may eventually have a trial by jury, where both sides present their case and a jury decides - for civil matters the standard is preponderance of the evidence (i.e. majority of evidence seems guilty or not), for criminal it's beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning it seems pretty clear and any evidence that is against seems unlikely.
So speaking generally, when indictment in front of a grand jury fails, it means one of something like these happened:
So again, not talking about the case (I've discussed/debated in other threads - this is not a new story), just the parts of the title that make it clear OP doesn't understand the difference between a jury and a grand jury. :)
do also note, that if the prosecution doesn’t like the results of the grand jury he can just keep doing it over until he gets the answer he wants… unless he is actually not trying for a conviction.
Sounds like a modern and reasonable institution.
Would you prefer the case go to trial before it's established if there's sufficient probable cause? Or if only the state gets to make that determination?
Given that grand jury indictment rates are like >90%, what’s actually being achieved here?
That's probably a pretty good rate considering probable cause is the bar.
Also given there's no defence, I should hope they could almost always win a completely uncontested review of evidence.
+/-10% of cases with bullshit evidence aren't going to trial
Well, look at the article...
Yes
Ok bootlicker
Almost every other jurisdiction in functional democracies do not have grand juries and don't plan to implement such a mechanism, nor are they implored to do so, are they all bootlickers?
Yes. Yes they are. Anyone who wants more government control of the justice system, and less accountability to the people, is a bootlicker. People in those countries are expected to trust that the state did it's due diligence before putting someone on trial, and as the right sweeps these countries they're going to learn why that's a mistake.
one of the faces of American exceptionalism
"America does one thing right" != "America does everything right". The courts are the only thing holding Trump in check right now. Whats going to put a check on a European trump?
Separation of power still works with a populist leader when a strong constitution is in place.
Then by all means, cede all of your power to the state. Good luck.
You are right, I’m no theorist, but there is a reason it has mostly worked so far. And as if a coup for absolute power would stop at the grand jury. It is also only protected by „just“ another court.
I'm just not sure why you want fewer barriers instead of more