Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bruce Eden's avatar

Grand Juries were once the province of the county freeholders. They were used to keep judges and politicians in check. They were also used to control the budgets of the counties. Then, in 1947, after WWII, the US District Attorneys Association seized the Grand Juries as their own. This is because too many politicians and judges complained that the local and even U.S. Grand Juries were being used to go after them for corruption, fraud, extortion, and the like. They claimed that grand juries were being used frivolously and maliciously against them. It is highly doubtful that grand juries were used frivolously and maliciously. Maybe in a small number of cases, but not in the overall scheme of things. Many politicians back then were as corrupt, malicious and criminal, as they are today.

Once the grand juries were seized to be used by county, state and federal prosecutors, We the People lost a major part of the 6th Amendment. It was not to be used by government entities to prosecute. Yes, it was all nice sounding that prosecutors would go after criminals and the grand juries would be a buffer to false or weak claims. But this is no longer the case. Grand Juries are used as a "baseball bat" against any political opposition, wealthy people, or powerful people that prosecutors don't like. This is especially evident in Marxist-Communist totalitarian "Blue States" like New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, and even Arizona (where we have a fraudulently inserted Democrat Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State running (ruining) the state there.

The way to take back grand juries is to stop funding them, and legislating them to be brought back to the Board of Freeholders (Executive Boards), and take it out of the hands of local, state and Federal prosecutors who are maliciously using it for any reason now.

Expand full comment
Rick Bradford's avatar

I still remember my own shock when I realised that the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK refer unashamedly to convictions as "successes" - the matter of whether the man in question is actually guilty being of no interest to them. As they strive to maximise their "successes" their explicit support for the police's assistance in building a prosecution case follows. And as the prosecution is responsible for disclosure (in English law), the CPS's complicity in the endemic failures to disclose exculpatory evidence also follows.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts