He. Tried. To. Kill. You.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that’s more than mere accusations. And “innocent until proven guilty” is not a legal construct; it’s simply a moral standard (or verbatim reminder of local judges to their local jurors when considering information in hopes of limiting their prejudice on information demonstrated during trial).

    • DeepFriedDresden
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      5th amendment states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

      A grand jury indictment determines whether there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that crime.

      You can’t treat a person as though they’re guilty without due process which is a long way of saying innocent until proven guilty.

    • Schadrach
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that’s more than mere accusations.

      An indictment is literally a formal accusation. It’s the process of charging them with a crime, which federally and in many states requires passing the outline of the prosecution’s case by a grand jury for approval to prevent prosecutors from abusing their power (it’s very rare for a case brought before a grand jury not to result in an indictment, since it’s just the prosecutor arguing why they should be allowed to charge the accused with no defense permitted). Not all states even bother with a grand jury, and in those states anyone the prosecutor’s office wants to charge is indicted.

      Are you seriously trying to argue that charging someone with a crime is sufficient evidence that they committed the crime to place restrictions on them beyond those meant to prevent them from fleeing justice?