Grand Jury
Law (In No Particular Order) Comments (1)
We rarely see the grand jury on Law & Order, possibly because the proceedings aren’t usually very dramatic (or, more likely, because a half-hour is barely enough time to hold a courtroom trial to begin with). In the rare instance that a grand jury is depicted on the show, the ADA reigns supreme. This is the case in real life.
Grand Jury proceedings are secret, and the defendant isn’t even present unless he’s testifying—which he must do if called to the stand (unlike a trial). The defendant isn’t represented by a lawyer during grand jury proceedings and can’t call witnesses. Grand juries send the vast majority of defendants to trial. (New York State judge Sol Wachtler famously once said that a grand jury would “indict a ham sandwich.”)
For these reasons, the system is subjected to an enormous amount of criticism, and numerous jurisdictions have done away with it, opting instead for hearings before a judge. New York City, however, still uses grand juries.
©True Stories of Law & Order
Administrator @ November 22, 2011
Top 10 Reasons Why Whitey Bulger Isn’t Osama bin Laden
A Pakistani ambassador recently compared the FBI’s failure to catch its #2 Most Wanted fugitive, Whitey Bulger, to his own government’s failure to notice Osama bin Laden living in their backyard (see blog post below).
Besides having friends in high places and a cold, dead look in their eyes, Whitey Bulger and Osama bin Laden don’t have much in common as far as we can tell. There are, however, some important differences.
Whitey Bulger . . .
1. Never picks a fight he can’t win
2. Used terror to make money, not the other way around
3. Doesn’t wag his finger when he denounces infidels
4. Couldn’t grow a beard if he tried
5. Can’t stand tabouli
6. Haaaaates the spotlight!
7. Has four fewer wives than Osama bin Laden
8. Probably doesn’t expect to go to heaven
9. Doesn’t have a habit of leaving his nefarious plans scattered around his bedroom
10. No one will be upset when he kicks the bucket
Dwyer @ May 16, 2011
Whitey bin Laden?
Struggling to convince the world of the preposterous notion that Osama bin Laden had had no help from high-level Pakistani government and/or military figures, Pakistani ambassador Husain Haqqani compared Osama bin Laden to Whitey Bulger. Needless to say, the only thing they had in common was the fact that they sat next to each other on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for 10 years.
In a posting on Slate, Tom Scocca nicely articulates why Haqqani should have read at least one true-crime book on Bulger before he opened his mouth . . .
In a phone conversation with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg yesterday, Pakistani ambassador Husain Haqqani challenged the notion that his country should have been able to notice Osama bin Laden’s hiding place: “If Whitey Bulger can live undetected by American police for so long, why can’t Osama bin Laden live undetected by Pakistani authorities?” Haqqani asked.
It’s cute of Haqqani to be reading the Most Wanted List for other examples of hard-to-apprehend fugitives. But Whitey Bulger probably isn’t the one he wants to discuss.
For the record, James “Whitey” Bulger was able to rule Boston’s criminal underworld in large part because he was an informant protected by the FBI—even as he allegedly murdered people. It also didn’t hurt that his brother, William Bulger, was the president of the Massachusetts State Senate. When the Justice Department finally moved to arrest Whitey Bulger anyway, he was tipped off by his corrupt contacts in the FBI and the Boston police.
So: enmeshed with the government and protected by the agency that was supposed to be capturing him. If Haqqani really believes bin Laden was the Whitey Bulger of Pakistan, then the ISI [Pakistan’s intelligence agency] has a lot to answer for.
—from Slate.com
Administrator @ May 12, 2011
Reasonable Doubt
Law (In No Particular Order) Comments (0)
What’s reasonable when it comes to doubt?
Beyond a reasonable doubt is often described as “to moral certainty.” Some legal analysts approximate the numerical value of reasonable doubt to be a 95 percent certainty, while others assess it as a 98 or 99 percent certainty.
The prosecution has the burden of proving—by means other than a defendant’s confession—that a crime has occurred and was committed by the defendant. The prosecution must also prove that defendant had the intent required for the act to be considered a crime. An act without criminal intent cannot be considered a crime. Additionally, a connection between the act and the intent must be established. A defendant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of his or her out-of-court confession.
“The rule evolved in principle part because of the law’s distrust of extrajudicial confessions and its consequent reluctance to allow a defendant to be convicted on his or her admission to a crime without further proof that a crime has been committed,” authors David Brody, James Acker and Wayne Logan explain in Criminal Law.
The burden of proof remains with the prosecution throughout the criminal trial. The only time the defendant bears a burden of proof is when he or she claims an affirmative defense such as self-defense or insanity. With an affirmative defense, the defendant admits to having committed the crime charged but offers up an excuse or justification for his or her actions; i.e. the defendant fatally stabbed her neighbor because he pulled a gun on her first.
Fio @ February 22, 2011
