How A Grand Jury's Indictment Is Indistinguishable From Being Found Guilty
from the there's-a-reason-no-other-countries-use-this-system dept
A recent post of mine took on grand juries, specifically the astounding fact that a North Carolina grand jury managed to crank out 276 indictments in four hours -- or roughly, one indictment every 52 seconds. Some commenters pointed out (correctly) that grand juries don't actually declare anyone "guilty." They just determine whether the prosecution has enough evidence to bring the case to trial.
But the system is still broken. Grand juries may not hand out guilty verdicts, but they do have the power to imprison people for an indefinite amount of time simply by indicting them. This is exactly what happened to Justin Carter, the teen charged with making terroristic threats after someone reported statements he made while trash-talking with some fellow League of Legends players. The Dallas Observer has been tracking this case (via Reason), and the phrases below are what have been termed "terroristic threats."
One of the comments appears to be a response to an earlier comment in which someone called Carter crazy. Carter's retort was: "I'm fucked in the head alright, I think I'ma SHOOT UP A KINDERGARTEN [sic]."Carter was indicted by a grand jury based solely on these statements. (Police failed to uncover anything else damning after searching Carter's residence.) According to Carter's lawyer, the prosecutor presented the "threats" using a couple of screenshots wholly removed from context to the grand jury, which found these met the requirements of the "terroristic threat" charge.
Carter followed with "AND WATCH THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT RAIN DOWN."
But Flanary says that Bates presented a truncated version of the comments to grand jurors. They did not see "I'm fucked in the head alright, I think I'ma" before "shoot up a kindergarten." If this sounds like the nitpicking of a defense attorney, that's precisely the point.So, the grand jury indicted Carter and the prosecutor asked for $500,000 bail. Carter was jailed in February of 2013 (the first month of which he spent unindicted while officials sorted out jurisdictional issues), where he was beaten, raped, put in solitary for his own protection and placed on suicide watch. He wasn't released until July when an anonymous donor paid the bail.
"When you're dealing with speech," Flanary says, "... it is absolutely, 100 percent important that the words that you are charging people with are actually the words that they said and not some misrepresentation. And that's what ... this prosecutor did, is misrepresent to the grand jury what he said."
How is that indistinguishable from being found guilty in court? A prosecutor presents only the evidence that will persuade the grand jury to indict and follows it up by asking a judge to set an exorbitant bail. For Carter, he may as well have been found guilty by a jury, for all the difference "it's only an indictment" made. Since his family couldn't afford the bail, Carter remained imprisoned, despite not having been found guilty of any crime.
Running 276 cases through in four hours is grossly irresponsible, and it put an unknown number of people into a position like Carter's -- jailed but still supposedly "innocent until proven guilty." For a large majority of Americans, a bail amount even 1/10th of Carter's $500,000 is unaffordable. Once indicted and with bail set above what they can afford, they are jailed until they can go to trial and finally start exercising their due process rights, which can often be months after the indictment.
I understand the bail process is in place to help prevent the accused from simply fleeing the country, state or whatever and avoid "justice," but this combination of grand juries and aggressive prosecution seeking excessive bail amounts turns the system into "guilty until proven innocent."
That's not how the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be indicted, jailed indefinitely and then finally allowed to face your accusers and a jury of your peers, if and when that date arrives. Grand juries subvert the criminal justice system, turning the merely accused into de facto criminals, indistinguishable from the other prisoners except for the fact that many of their new "peers" have likely had a chance to avail themselves of their constitutional rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: grand jury, justin carter, north carolina
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Where this prosecutor is concerned, while I don't know the full context of law, he created what can be explained as reversible error and made the grand jury complicit in the mad dash to get an indictment.
This is how innocent people get convicted because over-zealous prosecutors play games with grand juries in order to get their indictments. If the grand jury had been given the full context of the comment, as the prosecutor in this case was well aware, the grand jury would never have indicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grand Juries are just like Juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grand Jury = Milgram Experiment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harsh Judgement
Ask yourself again... did America Deserve a 9/11 from a philosophical point of view?
We sit in the lap of luxury that even kings 100 years ago could not afford and allow out of control law enforcement to SHIT straight down the neck of Liberty, while authorities no only allow, but approve these actions as America looks on in apathy.
Some say... In war there are no innocents... because if you do not protest the 'evil' actions of your government then you need to consider if that is enough to make it look as though you support the 'evil' it commits. Keep these things in mind as you vote/support your next/current congress critter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harsh Judgement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Harsh Judgement
No, he didn't. Learn to think a little harder about what you're reading before shooting your mouth off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Harsh Judgement
Did you seriously just ask if we deserved 9-11 because someone was wrongfully imprisoned? Are you demented? 3k people were killed who had *fuck all* to do w/ anything in this article, and you're asking if we deserved it???? I take it back: you're fucking *insane*, not just demented.
The question is intended to make people think. But if you think I am insane why bother to response to the question?
Perhaps you can tell us at which point you feel that a nation would be guilty of its actions?
How much suffering do you think Germany's innocent suffered during and after World War II? Go and read up on that and tell me who is insane?
How about the suffering of the People in North Korea?
What has the US been doing in the middle east for the past 50 years... meddling... meddling so damn much that they hate the shit out of us... which is why secret politics and secret diplomacy always ends in failure.
Now do I believe we deserved 9/11? No I don't because our government keeps this shit relatively secret from us. But here is a kicker... if another happens, now that we are all well aware of how nasty the US has become, I can't say that we can consider ourselves all that blameless.
After 9/11 happened we voted in a terrorist that is actually trying to justify drone strikes against Americans without due process. Based on the behavior of the left they may not say it, well some have, but they seem to really believe we deserved it. So as long as there are people how there who think we do, then the question must be asked? Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Harsh Judgement
That is such a lame attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harsh Judgement
He got indicted. There is not much I�see wrong with that.
He got his life and mental and physical integrity fucked over because of getting indicted.
And there is hell of a lot wrong with that. An indictment is not a verdict and is not supposed to be connected to punishment.
In countries with a functioning judicial system, an indictment means you have to appear before court eventually. In extreme circumstances, when you are a potential danger to the public, it may mean being locked up until trial, with recompensation getting paid if the trial determines that the respective charges were meritless.
Now in this case, there was the claimed danger of a killing spree. Bail was set at $500.000. That's absurd. The main idea of bail is to keep a suspect from disappearing before trial.
Why would a 16-year old pupil disappear before trial? Makes no sense. If you are afraid that he'll go on a killing spree, you don't set bail. There is no way that an outstanding bail will keep somebody from running amok.
So the message of the prosecutor and/or judge is "for $500000, I am ok with the suspect shooting up a kindergarten". Either that, or "we don't believe this to be of merit, but we'll fuck you over it anyway".
In short, lynch justice, outside of a proper trial, and in full knowledge of not being related to an actual crime. Just behavior the prosecution and court don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Harsh Judgement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harsh Judgement
... and those that say this are either ignorant or attempting to justify their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically indistinguishable from Star Chambers and why their so called evidence is inadmissible in any court anywhere else on the planet.
Interestingly though the protections against self incrimination in the US's Fifth Ammendment were implemented to nullify the inquisitorial ability of Star Chambers.
Oh but "grand juries' are different. people say.. BULLSHIT! they are basically an absolutely inquisitorial process that removes due process, procedural fairness, transparency and the ability to be represented FULLY by counsel and not forget the fact that exculpatory evidence is NEVER shown because the prosecution is all powerful and the leader of proceedings .. ie: a Star Chambers or Kangaroo court.. take your pick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now for something completely the same
Well, here is a point of the "justice" system that is even more broken than grand juries. The purpose of jail time is atonement and reintegration. Not being cast in a lawless zone governed by "survival of the fittest".
How are inmates supposed to value the rules of society in an environment where they are shown that only the worst criminals will thrive?
Most of them will have a felony record afterwards and not be eligible for congress anyway, so why train them for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And now for something completely the same
There's a LOT wrong with north american justice.
A half a MEEEEELLION dollars bail seems ridiculous unless the judge really thought the kid was a flight risk, but IMO that would need to be substantiated by more than "ZOMG 9/11 + he was mean on teh intarwebz".
As you point out, the idiocy of the North American penal system, which tends to brutalize and criminalize people, is an MCF (Mongolian Cluster Fuck).
Even if one puts aside the rights of the incarcerated (not advocating such, but for sake of argument), society is benefited by rehabilitation rather than the Lord of the Flies stuff that happens now.
Being selfish for a minute, having this kid brutalized and making him more likely to arm himself and lash out since he (correctly) perceives that his world is a fucked up and dangerous place, is worse for ME, and doing countless times to people indicted for non-violent offenses is significantly worse for me. My point is that the "law & order" stumping for "tougher penalties", when criminal "justice" is as it is actually begets crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And now for something completely the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And now for something completely the same
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And now for something completely the same
They should have thought of that before doing whatever made the prosecutor want to turn them into his plaything.
If you don't recklessly want to invite your own rape, you better make sure to be born with both a penis and a silver spoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironically Enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...and ? ? ?
and -sadly- the conclusion is: we DON'T have a functioning justice system...
Per-i-od...
(just to make sure: we have a SUPER-HIGH-functioning injustice system, IF YOU ARE THE STATE or 1%-er...)
the media is broken,
the gummint is broken,
the justice system is broken,
and us 99% are broken and broke...
are we going to fix a broken system made immune to fixing by fixing a broken system which is immune to fixing by a broken system immune to fixing... ? ? ?
( ad infinitum )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not so simple solution
Yup - how many bankers have been to trial much less convicted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately, to the lawyers, it's a game
I have a friend that was an elementary school teacher. He was jailed for inappropriately touching a student. When the prosecutor realized that they didn't have any evidence, they delayed things, and told my friend that their trial would take place in a couple of years and offered a plea bargin of assault with probation.
When you actually hear the facts, the girl's mother had told her that if anyone 'touched her' and she didn't want them to, to tell one of her teachers. The other teacher immediately reported it. What it ultimately came down to was that my friend touched the girl's shoulder when he was talking to her. The prosecutor didn't want to come out and say that they'd screwed up after they'd had front page news about a teacher molesting a child, so they did their delay tactics. No prosecutor is going to plea bargin a child molestation case to an assault if they have evidence of the individual being a child molester.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunately, to the lawyers, it's a game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfortunately, to the lawyers, it's a game
I thought it was "The People Against so_in_so", not the prosecutor against so_in_so. I would assume that "The People" would be more interested in the facts and the truth rather than suppressing evidence in order to put someone in jail regardless of their guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make him personally bankrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing is, prosecutors only get one bite at the apple with grand juries. If a grand jury doesn't return with an indictment, I don't know what the procedure is, but any judge can refuse to allow a prosecutor to resubmit to the grand jury if they feel there is nothing changed in the prosecutor's desire to go back to the grand jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer is -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also perhaps worth noting that the US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world (tied with The Seychelles) at over 700 per 100,000 of the population - and that does NOT include juvenile detention numbers!
Is the US so much more criminal than the rest of the world or are we just addicted to locking people up. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A list of problems with the grand jury system (in the US at least):
1. Grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors
2. There is no requirement to provide any instruction on the law (and thus rarely occurs).
3. The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated (and thus rarely, if ever, occurs).
4. There is no right to counsel
5. There is no obligation to inform the accused that they are being accused, even if they are being called to testify before the grand jury. (This is supposedly to prevent people from fleeing if they know they are being investigated.)
6. There is no Fifth Amendment right regarding self incrimination, and witnesses and/or the accused can be held in contempt if they fail to appear or refuse to answer questions.
7. Testimony provided in the grand jury room can be used at trial. Therefore even if you can't be forced to incriminate yourself at trial, they can use your testimony before the grand jury as evidence.
8. Everything that proceeds in the grand jury room is sealed and secret unless the PROSECUTION wants to use it at trial. The defense does not get access to it otherwise. Note: This is to supposedly protect people who are accused but not indicted. However, there is no reason keep this secret once an indictment has been secured, except that is advantageous to the prosecutor to keep it secret.
9. Illegally obtained evidence is admissible in grand jury proceedings, e.g. items found during an illegal search.
These issues need to be addressed or the grand jury needs to be abolished. Some have argued that abolishing the grand jury would eliminate the little bit of protection that they provide on the few cases that they choose not to indict. Possibly. However, I believe that if every case had to go to trial, the prosecutors would dump many of these ridiculous cases, just due to case load.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sure this would work out just fine, do it for the lulz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See every revolution for details. So... what are your plans to prevent that from happening this time around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grand Juries are very similar to regular juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixing Grand Juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grand jury
We are the judge of the law and the facts. The law includes all those arcane and funny rules of court procedure. Monkey wrench their game. Do not follow the law when the law does violence to justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grand jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: grand jury
Perhaps you are thinking about non-democracies, in which case you've set the bar pretty low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broken Judicial System
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Broken Judicial System
This is sad. Awful. I have seen this type of INJUSTICE and I don't know how it can be that this even happens. There is a law, a much higher law and judicial that these people will have to face one day and its our All MIGHTY GOD. I am praying for you and hope your case is seen and handled accordingly as it should be. Somewhere there has to be justice, consequences for the actions of these individuals whom are part of this. Your ex should not sleep well at night knowing she has created Hell on earth for you, but mostly for her exposing the children to this type of behavior, knowing that they (as well as her) once were good enough to be husband father provider. Why can't you take back your home and take her to court for custody rights? You haven't mentioned this, your rights as their father. My heart hurts for you and your children most of all. You have to go about this from another angle. Keep faith that what's done in darkness always comes to light. I hope fair justice is fine for all and the Truth told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
people that commit perjury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If police are committing crimes against you in a small town who can you report to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]