Father indicted in death of drunk driver

Since people are talking of breaking the law canceling out breaking the law then the father is responsible for the drunk driver hitting his car.
He failed to follow the laws of the road concerning creating a traffic hazard with a broken down vehicle.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Since people are talking of breaking the law canceling out breaking the law then the father is responsible for the drunk driver hitting his car.
He failed to follow the laws of the road concerning creating a traffic hazard with a broken down vehicle.

valid.
Walk the rest of the path home, away from the road instead (paralell 10 feet?) of exposing himself and his kids.

[tater]

Not the best decision. But it is not breaking the law for the jury to decide whatever they like, for whatever reason they like, a jury is remarkably powerful in its narrow area.

I wonder why people are still going on about what a fictional jury will do when a grand jury has already looked at it and decided the indictment is fitting murder.
Is there some magical formula where 12 future people will view the case completely differently in regards to law than the 12 who already looked at it?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I wonder why people are still going on about what a fictional jury will do when a grand jury has already looked at it and decided the indictment is fitting murder.
Is there some magical formula where 12 future people will view the case completely differently in regards to law than the 12 who already looked at it?

I take it you have not sat on a US Grand Jury.

I did for 3 months a few years ago.

The GJ is given the charge the DA wishes to bring. ONLY the DA's case is presented. The GJ then virtually rubber stamps the indictment. In 3 months I was empaneled for only about a weeks worth of days over that period. We worked 8 hours, and did multiple criminal indictments per day. There were hundreds of charges, usually several per case. In a FEW of the cases we indicted on fewer than all the charges. Maybe 5%. No one was NOT indicted for any crime. Not one. We all knew that we were not deciding anything other than "is it worth having a day in court?" We didn't suggest lesser charges to the DA or asst DA, we assumed they knew what they were doing.

You can, as they say, indict a ham sandwich.

Indictments mean nothing at all.

PS---I never suggested that juries should ignore instructions, but that they could ignore instructions.

Tater, explain why they rejected the defence that would have brought a lesser charge.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Tater, explain why they rejected the defence that would have brought a lesser charge.

The GJ?

The GJ is only presented with the charges that the DA presses. They can either indict, or not indict, charge by charge. They have no flexibility. There is no defense. Even witnesses have no lawyers.

The DA clearly thinks he can get murder. The GJ thought "this deserves a day in court" and did what they always do, rubber stamp the DA.

There is no defense in a grand jury at all. Only the DA presents, the jury decides if there is probable cause for a trial.

There is only a lesser charge if the DA decides to ask for one (though some states might have included lesser charges, I dunno, and it never came up in any of my 4 jury duties).