Don’t real cops/law enforcement usually go before a grand jury when they are involved in a shooting? Seems like Ice would have to do the same, maybe grand juries are gay now or something 🤷♂️.
No. Grand juries are used when a prosecutor wants to bring a certain level of charges against someone. The prosecutor basically shows the evidence they have that would justify a case, and they sign off on the indictment (charges). While a trial is not a sure thing for either side, grand jury proceedings are basically a formality and it’s not uncommon for a prosecutor to go their entire career without failing to get a grand jury indictment.
If an officer-involved shooting is justified and there’s no reason to bring charges, there’s no reason to get a grand jury involved either.
Not usually. Prosecutions for police shootings in the US are rare. Typically just an internal investigation done by another department that clears the shooter. It must be extra egregious or have serious public pressure for an AD to even attempt to bring charges.
My understanding was the grand jury was more or less a formality so that double jeopardy would prevent any future prosecutions from happening, but what you’re saying 100% tracks as well.
A grand jury will not create double jeopardy because it happens before charges are brought. It’s a way for a prosecutor to see if the evidence they have is strong enough. If a grand jury does not indict they can try again with new evidence or a different approach. They aren’t necessarily required for every criminal case. But making a weak case to a grand jury is a way prosecutors avoid charging cops while claiming to have tried their best to the public. Especially with the secrecy around them.
Don’t real cops/law enforcement usually go before a grand jury when they are involved in a shooting? Seems like Ice would have to do the same, maybe grand juries are gay now or something 🤷♂️.
No. Grand juries are used when a prosecutor wants to bring a certain level of charges against someone. The prosecutor basically shows the evidence they have that would justify a case, and they sign off on the indictment (charges). While a trial is not a sure thing for either side, grand jury proceedings are basically a formality and it’s not uncommon for a prosecutor to go their entire career without failing to get a grand jury indictment.
If an officer-involved shooting is justified and there’s no reason to bring charges, there’s no reason to get a grand jury involved either.
Not usually. Prosecutions for police shootings in the US are rare. Typically just an internal investigation done by another department that clears the shooter. It must be extra egregious or have serious public pressure for an AD to even attempt to bring charges.
My understanding was the grand jury was more or less a formality so that double jeopardy would prevent any future prosecutions from happening, but what you’re saying 100% tracks as well.
A grand jury will not create double jeopardy because it happens before charges are brought. It’s a way for a prosecutor to see if the evidence they have is strong enough. If a grand jury does not indict they can try again with new evidence or a different approach. They aren’t necessarily required for every criminal case. But making a weak case to a grand jury is a way prosecutors avoid charging cops while claiming to have tried their best to the public. Especially with the secrecy around them.