Former Manhattan Prosecutor on Why Grand Juries Don’t Indict Officers

mrsat_98

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
4,652
Former Manhattan Prosecutor on Why Grand Juries Don’t Indict Officers

http://revolution-news.com/former-manhattan-prosecutor-on-why-grand-juries-dont-indict-officers/

In response to the recent Ohio grand jury decision not to bring charges against two police officers in the 2014 shooting death of Tamir Rice, Ikiesha Al-Shabazz Whittaker, a former Manhattan prosecutor, posted a video on her Facebook profile to express her frustration with the Grand Jury process and the United States legal system.



She explains at length why grand juries don’t indict police officers. “I know some things that I don’t think you guys know,” she says at the beginning of the video, which has been viewed more than 1.4 million times. “I want to share it with you because my level of outrage and frustration is at an all-time high.”

She explains that the first thing people need to understand is that a Grand Jury hearing is an ex-parte proceeding, meaning that the entire process is completely one sided, orchestrated and fully controlled by the prosecutor.

Ikiesha Whittaker elaborates on that point stating that the only information ever presented to a Grand Jury for deliberation is the exclusive discretion of the prosecutor involved.

Held in secret, the entire proceedings from what evidence is presented and how that evidence is presented, which she refers to as ‘the spin,’ is entirely orchestrated, without judicial oversight by the prosecutor.

She states that in the cases of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and others murdered by police that we should understand that the grand jury process is all orchestrated.

“I indicted motherfuckers for five whole years, OK? And I’m telling you it don’t take shit to do it.” She suggests that the only way to put an end to instances of cops avoiding indictment in police shooting cases is to overhaul the grand jury system altogether. “Legislators need to change the way grand jury presentations are conducted,” she says. “You can’t keep banging your head against a wall and expect the wall to give!”




Beginning the first of this year California will become the only state where Grand Juries will no longer be used in cases of police shootings. The obvious flaw in the new California law is that the decision to indict police officers on charges will be left to the prosecutor. Possibly a step in the right direction where communities could then attempt to force a prosecutors decision, but a major overhaul of the Grand Jury process and the US judicial system is absolutely necessary if Americans ever expect justice.
 
It is said a prosecutor can indict an ham sandwich. If that is so then certainly he can clear a piece of bacon.
 
Beginning the first of this year California will become the only state where Grand Juries will no longer be used in cases of police shootings. The obvious flaw in the new California law is that the decision to indict police officers on charges will be left to the prosecutor.
It doesn't really matter. Even if prosecutors were allowed no discretion or involvement in charging or indicting cops, they'd still be the ones running the show when a case goes to trial - and if they can manage to avoid getting an indictment when they don't want one, then they can manage to avoid getting a conviction when they don't want one ...
 
It doesn't really matter. Even if prosecutors were allowed no discretion or involvement in charging or indicting cops, they'd still be the ones running the show when a case goes to trial - and if they can manage to avoid getting an indictment when they don't want one, then they can manage to avoid getting a conviction when they don't want one ...

Yup.
 
The way I understand it, the prosecutors present the evidence to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury only has to decide if there is a reason to put the officer on trial. So if the prosecutor does not want the Grand Jury to try the case, he can just omit evidence (or downplay the significance) and subtly encourage the Grand Jury to vote not to proceed.

So what's the solution?
 
Bring in Federal Prosecutors. The local prosecutors drink and eat with the local police force. Bring in the fed's and indict under U.S.C. 18 241 and 242...

My .02

Acesfull
 
The way I understand it, the prosecutors present the evidence to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury only has to decide if there is a reason to put the officer on trial. So if the prosecutor does not want the Grand Jury to try the case, he can just omit evidence (or downplay the significance) and subtly encourage the Grand Jury to vote not to proceed.

So what's the solution?

dude58677 identifies a good start towards a solution:
What about legislation that eliminates prosecutors and allows private citizens to be plaintiffs in criminal proceedings? Any sheriffs receptive to this idea?

This is the way things used to work way back when - before governments usurped the discovered "old and good" customary (i.e., "common") law and replaced it with their own "invented" statutory laws (along with other equally self-serving innovations like replacing citizen-plaintiffs with state-beholden "prosecutors").
 
dude58677 identifies a good start towards a solution:


This is the way things used to work way back when - before governments usurped the discovered "old and good" customary (i.e., "common") law and replaced it with their own "invented" statutory laws (along with other equally self-serving innovations like replacing citizen-plaintiffs with state-beholden "prosecutors").

With the Tea Party movement, Richard Mack, and the Sheriffs Peace Officers Association we should be able to find someone? You find someone to do this and all the corruption in Washington can go away. Any corrupt politician or bureaucrat can be indicted for anything that violates the Constitution. Any President giving an order for an undeclared war or any IRS agent who taxes you, etc.

The prosecutor is actually the biggest problem in this country. There is corruption in Washington because prosecutors refuse to hold corrupt public officials accountable and then in turn indict the wrong people.

The sheriffs can authorize the Oathkeepers to arrest any public official outside the county.
 
Last edited:
“I indicted motherfuckers for five whole years, OK? And I’m telling you it don’t take shit to do it.”

One might say she is part of the problem.
 
Back
Top