Quote:
Originally Posted by n david
I'm only suggesting that the incredibly low "true bill" rates for cops is suspect. Prosecutors work daily with the police. They are on the same side of the law, and thus enjoy some benefits which come with it, including increased prosecutorial discretion.
Sol Wachtler, a NY State Judge, once claimed Grand Juries were so pliable that a Prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.
A Federal Judge from Chicago, William J. Campbell said, “Today, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury."
For example, *between 10/2009 and 9/2010, over 162,350 were prosecuted and resulted in true bills from the Grand Jury. Only 11 resulted in the Grand Jury not returning with an indictment.
That's a 99% true bill rate.
However, when it comes to LEO's being prosecuted, the true bill rate plummets.
That's only .01% returning an indictment against a cop. Of cases sent to the Grand Jury where the officer was at least suspected to have committed a crime, 99% walked free. That's the complete opposite of the civilian rate.
I don't know that this Prosecutor was biased towards the cop. Typically defendants do not testify before a Grand Jury. It's very rare when they do. The reasons I've found are: they're not allowed legal representation, they are questioned only by the Prosecutor and there is no Judge to handle objections. It's a dangerous choice for the defendant to make.
Both the officer in Ferguson and the officer in NY testified before the Grand Jury. We have the transcripts and all evidence of the Ferguson case, but the transcripts of the NY case have been kept under seal. The Prosecutor allowed a summary of evidence and number of witnesses to be released, but that was all which was allowed.
I wish there was a way to find out how many cops have testified to a Grand Jury compared to civilians and in those cases, how many GJ's came back with a true bill.
*Source Link
^^Source Link |
I do believe that often, people aren't indicted on charges they probably should be. However, you are comparing the actions of an officer with those of civilians. I don't think that's something that can be compared. I say that because officers are required as part of their job to do things that we as civilians cannot do. We don't have the authority of the law on our side as they do. Now, this doesn't mean that they all act within the confines of the law. I do believe many take their authority and use it as a reason to harass, threaten, and such like in order to 'be the boss'.
That being said, I think it makes it harder to indict someone of using their authority inappropriately when it's part of their job compared to someone who is just an average joe that might do the same thing.
Compare a doctor to myself. A doctor can prescribe a medication that may kill his patient. He can be brought up before the GJ to indict him on negligence because the medication he prescribed was something the patient was horribly allergic to and he died. Turns out, the doctor didn't know he was allergic and no action is taken.
I, on the other hand, obtain a prescription pad and write a prescription for my child, who subsequently dies due to an allergy. I am brought up on charges, found guilty, and sentenced to 50 years.
Now, if you compare the actual happenstance, I did the same thing the doctor did. He wrote a prescription, so did I. His patient died from an allergy, so did mine. He was never charged, I'm serving 50 years.
The difference? The doctor, as part of his job as a licensed professional, can legally do something I cannot do. You can argue that the doctor did indeed know about the allergy and let's say you prove it, you might be able to prove negligence, but he won't serve 50 years like I am.
I think it's very difficult to prosecute someone for something they are legally allowed to do, even when someone dies. This is why most malpractice suits literally don't make it to court. I promise you that the people who file suits against the cops find themselves in the same situation. There isn't an attorney in the world who will take their case because it's a no-win situation unless you have absolute die-hard evidence. It's just not as easy as it is for filing those same charges against Joe Schmoe.